Brown v. Goodwin

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BANKS, J.
• Citation: Brown v. Goodwin, 110 Conn. 217, 147 A. 673 (Conn. 1929)
• Decision Date: 07 November 1929
• Parties: BROWN v. GOODWIN.

147 A. 673

110 Conn. 217

BROWN v. GOODWIN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

November 7, 1929

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas Court, Litchfield County; Elbert B. Hamlin, Judge.

Action by Fred S. Brown against Henry C. Goodwin, administrator, to recover the reasonable value of services alleged to have been rendered by plaintiff to defendant's intestate. Tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.

Walter Holcomb, of Torrington, for appellant.

Thomas J. Wall, of Torrington, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.

BANKS J.

Plaintiff was a neighbor of defendant's intestate Catlin, who was a cripple and lived entirely alone, and after his death presented a claim against his estate for services claimed to have been rendered him covering a period of three years prior to his death. The defense was that any services rendered by the plaintiff were voluntary and without expectation or promise of payment. The appellant seeks to have the finding corrected by adding thereto the statement of the claims of law set forth in his request for a finding and by striking out certain portions of the finding stating facts which the plaintiff claimed to have proven. In the case of a jury trial ordinarily the errors claimed relate to the charge, or to rulings upon evidence or to the ruling of the court upon some motion made upon the trial. Such is the case here, and the finding fully sets forth the questions of law arising upon the trial. Section 18 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which provides that the finding shall contain the claims of law substantially as stated in the request for a finding, applies only to findings made in causes tried to the court. The motion to strike out certain paragraphs of the finding involves a misconception of the nature of the finding in a jury trial. It is merely a narrative of the facts claimed to have been proved on either side made for the purpose of fairly presenting any claimed errors in the charge or rulings of the court. It will not be corrected merely to secure a meticulous accuracy as to details in the claims of proof. State v. Gargano, 99 Conn. 103, 106, 121 A. 657. The finding as filed fairly presents the claimed errors in law, and, as pointed out by the trial court, the printing of the extensive evidence incorporated in the bill of exceptions was unnecessary.

Error is predicated upon certain rulings on evidence, the refusal to comply with certain requests to charge, and the charge as given. In so far as the requests to charge embodied instructions which it was the duty of the court to give the jury, they were sufficiently covered by the charge as given. The other claimed errors, and those upon which the appellant chiefly relies, have to do with the admission in evidence of a certain document, Plaintiff's Exhibit A, and the charge of the court as to the consideration to be given it by the jury. The document in question was in the handwriting of Catlin and signed by him, and purported to be a will leaving all his property to the plaintiff. It was dated two days before his death and was not witnessed and was not offered for...