Bell v. Strong

Decision Date21 February 1921
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesBELL v. STRONG et ux.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Frank D. Haines Judge.

Action by Arthur W. Bell against William B. Strong and wife to recover a broker's commission for effecting a sale of the defendant's real estate, brought to and tried by the superior court in Fairfield county. Facts found judgment rendered for the defendant and the plaintiff appeals. No error.

Raymond E. Hackett, of Stamford, for appellant.

C Milton Fessenden, of Stamford, for appellees.

BURPEE, J.

This appeal comes to this court under the provisions of section 5832 of the General Statutes. There are 34 assignments of error. In 24 of these the plaintiff claims that the court erred in not finding " as a fact" each of 24 paragraphs of his draft finding. In 4 others he claims that the court erred in finding " as a fact" 3 paragraphs of the finding and in its memorandum of decision. He has caused the evidence and rulings in the case to be made a part of the record on this appeal. He asks this court to try again on this printed record the issues of fact, and decide that his conclusions and inferences from the conflicting evidence were correct, and those of the trial court were wrong. This we cannot do. It is within the province of the trial court only to determine, on conflicting evidence, what the facts were. In such an appeal as this this court will examine the whole printed record, and will correct the finding where it appears that it does not present the facts properly. That means where it appears that facts were found without evidence. Such an examination in this appeal reveals that the evidence relating to the facts set forth in each of the paragraphs specified in the assignments of error was conflicting, and that the trial court could reasonably make the conclusions and inferences it has stated in its finding. Therefore those facts are the only facts which can be considered. Eudakaitis v. St. George's Lithuanian Society, 87 Conn. 1, 4, 86 A. 562; Johnson v Shuford, 91 Conn. 1, 5, 98 A. 333; Plum Trees Lime Co. v. Keeler, 92 Conn. 1, 7, 101 A. 509, Ann.Cas. 1918E, 831.

In the assignments of error numbered 29, 30, and 31 the plaintiff claims that the court erred in overruling certain claims of law. Each of these claims was really a claim of fact. The plaintiff did not raise in his pleadings any question concerning the bad faith of the defendant, but he argued in the trial court and urges in this appeal that the defendant acted in bad faith in certain respects. Upon the evidence the trial court found that in fact the defendant did not act in bad faith in any respect, thereby removing any basis for a claim of law concerning that matter, since the facts do not show that this conclusion was erroneous in law.

The thirty-fourth assignment of error is not specific, does not comply with the statute, and has been too often condemned by this court to deserve any consideration now. Avery v. Ginsburg, 92 Conn. 208, 102 A. 589.

To recover in this action, it was essential for the plaintiff to prove that he, as he alleged in his complaint, procured a purchaser of the defendant's property; that is, that he was " the effective procuring cause of the sale." That he was not the trial court found as a conclusion of fact from subordinate facts set forth in the finding. That determination is conclusive, unless upon examination of the printed record on appeal it plainly appears to be " contrary to or unsupported by the subordinate facts, or in conflict with the settled rules of logic and reason, or found in violation of some rule or principle of law."

Seward v. Seward & Son Co., 91 Conn. 190, 193, 99 A. 887. The material subordinate facts which appear in the record are these: In April and May, 1919, the plaintiff was a real estate broker and the defendant the owner of real estate in Stamford. The defendant listed his property with the plaintiff and with other real estate brokers for lease or for sale at a fixed price, which was once reduced. The plaintiff advertised and placed his sign on the property, and showed it to a number of prospective customers, including Dr....

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Hayward v. Plant
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 10, 1923
    ...... or when some one or more of the facts found are legally. inconsistent with the conclusions reached." Bell v. Strong, 96 Conn. 12, 112 A. 645; Jordan v. Apter, 93 Conn. 303, 305, 105 A. 620; Seward v. Seward & Son Co., 91 Conn. 193, 99 A. 887; ......
  • Siller v. Philip
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 4, 1928
    ...facts, for this presents a question of law for our consideration. Kugel v. Angell, 74 Conn. 546, 550, 51 A. 533; Bell v. Strong, 96 Conn. 12, 14, 112 A. 645; Hayward v. Plant, 98 Conn. 374, 379, 380, 119 A. 341; Dexter Yarn Co. v. American Fabrics Co., 102 Conn. 529, 540, 129 A. The reasons......
  • Greenwich Gas Co. v. Tuthill
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 29, 1931
    ...facts in evidence; and the appellant is entitled to no correction or addition by which its position will be advantaged. Bell v. Strong, 96 Conn. 12, 13, 112 A. 645; Eudakaitis v. St. George's Lithuanian Society, 87 Conn. 1, 4, 86 A. 562; Johnson v. Shuford, 91 Conn. 1, 98 A. 333; Plum Trees......
  • Dexter Yarn Co. v. American Fabrics Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 11, 1925
    ......This is so because. it is the exclusive province of the trial court to judge of. the credit of witnesses. Bell v. Strong, 96 Conn. 12, 112 A. 645; Phoenix M. L. Insurance Co. v. Opper, 75 Conn. 298, 53 A. 586; Allis v. Hall, . 76 Conn. 340, 56 A. 637. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT