Bronson v. President

• Citation: 75 A. 709,83 Conn. 128
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 15 March 1910
• Parties: BRONSON v. PRESIDENT, ETC., OF MECHANICS' BANK OF NEW HAVEN. SAME v. NEW HAVEN COUNTY NAT. BANK.

75 A. 709

83 Conn. 128

BRONSON

v. PRESIDENT, ETC., OF MECHANICS' BANK OF NEW HAVEN.

SAME

v. NEW HAVEN COUNTY NAT. BANK.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 15, 1910.

Actions by Nathaniel R. Bronson, trustee in bankruptcy, against the President, Directors, and Company of the Mechanics' Bank of New Haven and against the New Haven County National Bank. From a judgment for defendants in both cases, plaintiff appeals. Motions by defendants to dismiss appeals. Granted.

Seymour C. Loomis, for appellant.

Edward H. Harriman, for appellees.

HALL, C. J. The defendants' motions for the dismissal of the appeals in these eases are based upon section 59 of the rules of the Supreme Court of Errors (Practice Book 1908, p. 284), which provides that "if on the call of the docket, or at any subsequent time, it appears that any record which might have been made up and printed, has not been made up or printed and that the appellant is responsible therefor * * * the appeal * * * may be dismissed with costs. ***"

From the averments of the defendants' written motions to dismiss these appeals and the answers thereto, the affidavit of counsel for the plaintiff, and the statements made by the clerk of this court at the hearing in this court, the following facts affecting said motions appear to be uncontroverted:

April 26, 1909, judgment was rendered in the superior court in favor of the defendants in both cases. May 20, 1909, the plaintiff filed a draft finding containing 283 paragraphs, stating 104 questions of law sought to have reviewed, 96 rulings upon questions of evidence, and 67 claims of law made in the trial court. July 29, 1909, the trial judge filed a finding of facts for the purpose of an appeal to this court. September 7, 1909, the plaintiff filed a motion to correct the finding under section 795 of the General Statute, containing 67 exceptions to the finding of the trial judge, referring to more than 100 exhibits, and having annexed thereto 331 pages of evidence, claimed to be material to the exceptions. September 18, 1909, the court denied the motion to correct the finding. Prior to September 25, 1909, the defendants filed a request that all the evidence be certified in connection with the plaintiff's motion to correct the finding. September 25,

1909, the plaintiff filed his appeal to the October term of this court, alleging 67 errors of law. October 6, 1909, the trial court, upon the defendants' said motion, certified the entire evidence in the case, containing about 2,000 pages of the stenographer's notes, and made it a part of the record as provided in section 795. October 16, 1909, the plaintiff filed 47 additional reasons of appeal. Upon the certification of the entire evidence by the trial judge, the plaintiff directed the clerk to delay "the printing of the record," and the record has not yet been printed. December 4, 1909, the plaintiff requested his attorney, Mr. Judson, to see defendants' attorney, Mr. Stoddard, regarding a correction of the record. December 13, 1909, Mr. Judson wrote to Mr. Stoddard, stating that the plaintiff had reduced his exceptions to the finding to one or two, and to which a small part of the testimony was directed, and requesting an interview for the purpose of eliminating such parts of the transcript of the evidence as had no bearing upon the appeal. December 14, 1909, Mr. Stoddard replied, requesting Mr. Judson to communicate with him as soon as he could respecting the conference asked for, and stating that he, Mr. Stoddard, would arrange that he and Mr. Harriman should meet him. December 31, 1909, Mr. Judson went South, and at his request the proposed conference with Mr. Stoddard and Mr. Harriman was postponed. Mr. Judson returned January 10, 1910, and arranged for an interview to be had with Mr. Stoddard and Mr. Harriman February 4, 1910. January 31, 1910, the defendants' attorney wrote to the plaintiff's attorneys that, unless the latter began the printing of the record immediately, the defendants would move for the dismissal of the appeals at the March term of this court at Hartford. February 4, 1910, the previously arranged conference of the attorneys for the plaintiff and the defendants was had. February 5, 1910, Mr. Stoddard wrote Mr. Judson that he and Mr. Harriman were satisfied that it was impossible to present the appeal without printing all the certified proceedings, and that they again insisted that the printing of the record be proceeded with at once. February 11th the defendants filed their motions to dismiss the appeals. February 18, 1910, the plaintiff authorized the printing of the entire evidence, and on that day his attorney directed the clerk to proceed with the printing. February 24, 1910, plaintiff's attorneys filed in this court a motion to be...