From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vigorito v. Allard

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Dec 13, 1955
143 Conn. 70 (Conn. 1955)

Opinion

In this action to recover the balance due on a contract for the sale of certain storm windows and doors, the terms of the contract as alleged in the complaint were put in issue by the defendant's denial. The burden was, accordingly, on the plaintiff to prove what the terms were. The fact that the defendant, in a counterclaim for damages for breach of the contract, alleged that under the contract the crosspieces on the storm windows were to match those on his own windows did not relieve the plaintiff of his burden of proving his own case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Argued November 2, 1955

Decided December 13, 1955

Action to recover the price of goods sold, brought to the Town Court of Fairfield, where the defendant filed a counterclaim to recover damages for breach of contract and the issues were tried to the court, Friedman, J.; judgment for the defendant on the complaint and the counterclaim, and appeal by the plaintiff. No error.

Albert A. Garofalo, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Norwick R. G. Goodspeed, for the appellee (defendant).


In this action the plaintiff sought to recover a balance of $500 alleged to be due from the defendant on a contract for the sale of certain aluminum storm windows and doors. In his complaint the plaintiff alleged that on or about May 18, 1954, the defendant ordered twenty-one aluminum storm windows and three aluminum storm doors from him and agreed to pay $700. The defendant entered a denial of this allegation, and it follows that it was this issue that came on for trial on the complaint. The defendant also filed a counterclaim and in it alleged that the plaintiff had agreed that the crosspieces on the storm windows the defendant ordered would match the crosspieces on his windows. The plaintiff denied this allegation, and the parties were at issue on the counterclaim. At the conclusion of the trial, the court remarked that it was up to the plaintiff to prove that the crosspieces on the aluminum windows did not have to match the crosspieces on the defendant's windows. On the basis of this remark, the plaintiff argues that the court indicated a confusion as to where the burden of proof lay, and that this confusion resulted in an infirmity in its ultimate finding that the plaintiff failed in his proof. This by no means follows. The plaintiff clearly had the burden of proving his case on the complaint. His burden was in no way altered or shifted because the defendant had filed a counterclaim and came into court relying thereon. It was the plaintiff's burden to prove his own case by a preponderance of the evidence. Sortito v. Prudential Ins. Co., 108 Conn. 163, 171, 142 A. 808. Where the exact terms of a contract sued upon are put in issue by a denial, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove what those terms are. Lane v. McLay, 91 Conn. 185, 188, 99 A. 498.

The defendant, by filing his counterclaim, had not incorporated into the case new matter in the sense that existed in the case of Murray v. Supreme Lodge, 74 Conn. 715, 719, 52 A. 722. There the defendant had affirmatively alleged fraud in the misstatement by the insured of her age, and we said that the burden of proving that allegation was properly on the defendant. That is not the situation here; It was incumbent upon the plaintiff by a fair preponderance of the evidence to establish the contract upon which he relied and which he had set up in his complaint. On the whole evidence, the court found that he had failed in his burden. Indeed, the court went further and found affirmatively that the terms of the contract were that the crosspieces on the storm windows should match those on the house windows. This finding is not attacked. It was the burden of the plaintiff to establish what his contract was. The court found on the whole evidence that he had failed. We cannot find that this conclusion was not sound. It is unnecessary to discuss the rest of the plaintiff's claims. They bear only on the contention that the court was confused as to which party had the burden of proof, as indicated by its remark at the conclusion of the trial. The situation remains unaltered that it is logical to find, as we do, that the court in its judgment held that the plaintiff on the whole case had failed in his own burden.


Summaries of

Vigorito v. Allard

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Dec 13, 1955
143 Conn. 70 (Conn. 1955)
Case details for

Vigorito v. Allard

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY A. VIGORITO v. EDWARD ALLARD

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Dec 13, 1955

Citations

143 Conn. 70 (Conn. 1955)
118 A.2d 906

Citing Cases

Vekris v. Pass

It is clear that Mr. Pass has the burden of persuasion; that is, he must prove his case by a preponderance of…

Tripplet v. Stango

The fact that the plaintiff failed to clearly establish the terms of the contract written by him beyond that…