Bruneau v. W. & W. Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 July 1951
• Citation: 82 A.2d 923,138 Conn. 179
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BRUNEAU v. W. & W. TRANSP. CO., Inc., et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 923

82 A.2d 923

138 Conn. 179

BRUNEAU v. W. & W. TRANSP. CO., Inc., et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 31, 1951.

Edward S. Snyder and Robert J. Woodruff, New Haven, for the appellant plaintiff.

Irving E. Stroh, New Haven (T. Holmes Bracken, New Haven, on the brief), for the appellee named defendant.

Joseph I. Sachs, New Haven (Harry L. Edlin, New Haven, on the brief), for the appellee defendant General Industrial Bank.

Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.

BALDWIN, Judge.

The plaintiff charged the defendants with a conspiracy to deprive him, by false and fraudulent promises and representations, of a truck and to break up his trucking business, and also with a conversion of the truck to their own use. After the plaintiff had rested his case, both defendants rested also and moved for a directed verdict. The court granted their motions. The plaintiff appeals from a denial of his motion to set the verdict aside. In argument and brief the plaintiff waived any claim based upon conspiracy and rested his case entirely upon a claim of conversion by fraud. The only question presented is whether the plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to go to the jury.

We view the plaintiff's evidence in the light most favorable to him. Morris v. King Cole Stores, Inc., 132 Conn. 489, 491, 45 A.2d 710. The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: In December, 1947, the plaintiff purchased from the named defendant, hereinafter referred to as the transportation company, a used tractor truck for the agreed sum of $3537.97. He paid $1000 in cash and executed a conditional sale contract. By it, the plaintiff accepted the truck in its then condition and promised to pay the balance of the purchase price in eighteen successive monthly instalments beginning January 31, 1948. The contract was elaborate with provisions for repossessing the truck in the event of any default upon the part of the plaintiff. Nothing was left to sentiment, nor was any concession made to leniency. On the day it was executed by the plaintiff and the transportation company, the contract and all the right, title and interest of the company in and to the truck were assigned to the defendant General Industrial Bank.

The plaintiff was engaged in the trucking business, hauling freight between Boston, New Haven and New York. The truck, however, was not in good mechanical condition and required extensive repairs, which the plaintiff made at his own expense. He paid the instalment due in January on time. The February instalment was paid several days late, but the defendant bank accepted it. The plaintiff was unable to make the March payment when due and so informed the defendant bank, which granted a reasonable extension of time. On or about April 10 the truck was attached in a suit brought by a tire company for a balance of $80 due on the price of a tire which the plaintiff had been obliged to purchase for the truck. The plaintiff reported the attachment to a representative of the defendant bank and stated that he was trying to secure a release of the attachment and that he intended to sell the truck, whereupon the bank's representative said that he would give the plaintiff time to see what he could do. On the following day, while he was trying to arrange for a release of the attachment, the truck was repossessed. The plaintiff next saw it in the yard of the transportation company, which was using it. He called upon the president of the company to inquire about the truck and was told, 'Don't bother me about it, the bank gave it to me.' Thereafter, the plaintiff gave up the idea of getting the truck back and quit the trucking business. He did not have the money to release the attachment...