Broderick v. Shea

Decision Date10 July 1956
Citation143 Conn. 590,124 A.2d 229
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesMary E. BRODERICK v. Robert J. SHEA et al., Executors (Estate of Jeremiah J. Broderick). Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Abraham Zweigbaum, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).

Charles A. Watrous, New Haven, with whom was Pasquale Pepe, Ansonia, for appellees (defendants).

Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.

WYNNE, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover for services claimed to have been rendered the decedent. The action is based upon a claim filed against the estate of the late Father Jeremiah J. Broderick of Hartford. The plaintiff is the wife of the decedent's cousin and lived with her husband in New Haven. The complaint alleged an express promise by the decedent to pay the plaintiff, but at the trial she proceeded on the basis of an implied contract. The defendants are the executors of the will of the decedent. The court found all the issues for the defendants. From the judgment the plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff in her assignment of errors attacks certain of the court's findings of fact and its conclusions. She also claims that the court should have found, as set forth in her draft finding, that the decedent accepted the plaintiff's services. Such a fact was implicit in the court's finding as made.

The finding sets forth the following facts: The plaintiff, who knew Father Broderick for about forty-three years, lived with her husband in a second-floor apartment at 1341 Chapel Street in New Haven. Father Broderick first visited the plaintiff and her husband in 1942 and made many visits in the course of the next eleven years, sometimes staying for a night or two. He always had the use of the same bedroom, which the plaintiff furnished with linen and kept in order. When visiting at the plaintiff's home, he had meals there which were prepared by her. In 1951, he was ill and remained at the plaintiff's home for about two weeks. Over a few days in 1953, the plaintiff assisted him while he was ill and unable to walk. At times during 1953, she prepared food especially to suit his taste. In 1954, he came to her home after a hospital stay and remained from April until May. She prepared his food and took care of him. During the same year, following another hospital discharge, he remained at the plaintiff's home for about four or five days. On a few occasions when he was sick while at the plaintiff's apartment, she laundered his pajamas. Father Broderick died in Hartford on July 16, 1954. He left a will in which he bequeathed $1000 to the plaintiff's husband. At no time did the plaintiff reveal to the decedent that she expected to be paid for what she did for him.

The plaintiff's attack upon the finding amounts to nothing more than a request that we accept her version of the facts. It is for the trier to pass upon the credibility of witnesses. Eastern Sportswear Co. v. S. Augstein & Co., 141 Conn. 420, 422, 106 A.2d 476; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., p. 122. This court cannot retry the case. African Methodist Episcopal Church of Bridgeport v. Jenkins, 139 Conn. 418, 423, 94 A.2d 618. The trial court found that the testimony of the plaintiff and her witnesses was not credible.

One ruling on evidence is assigned as error. The plaintiff had testified that over the years she had rendered services to the decedent. She was called for redirect examination, and the following occurred: She was asked, 'Mrs....

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • State v. Reid
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1984
    ...observe his condition soon after the crime, it would have been natural for him to produce her testimony if favorable. Broderick v. Shea, 143 Conn. 590, 124 A.2d 229 (1956). Furthermore, the defendant did not advance his argument of equal availability at trial in compliance with our rules. S......
  • Baker v. Baker
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1974
    ...they amount "to nothing more than a request that we accept . . . (his) version of the facts. . . .' Broderick v. Shea, . . . (143 Conn. 590, 592, 124 A.2d 229).' Salvatore v. Milicki, 163 Conn. 275, 278, 303 A.2d 734, 736. This is particularly true with regard to those paragraphs challenged......
  • Lombardo v. Simko
    • United States
    • Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
    • July 27, 1965
    ...failure to call her gave rise to a proper inference that her testimony would have been unfavorable to the plaintiff. Broderick v. Shea, 143 Conn. 590, 593, 124 A.2d 229. 'A witness who would naturally be produced by a party is one who is known to that party and who, by reason of * * * [her]......
  • Southern New England Contracting Co. v. State
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1974
    ...meaning, "amount to nothing more than a request that we accept . . . (their) version of the facts. . . .' Broderick v. Shea, 143 Conn. 590, 591, 592, 124 A.2d 229, 230.' Salvatore v. Milicki, supra, 278, 303 A.2d 736. This is particularly so in regard to those paragraphs challenged as being......
  • 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