City of Norwalk v. Trombetta

• Decision Date: 05 December 1950
• Citation: 77 A.2d 77,137 Conn. 318
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF NORWALK v. TROMBETTA. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 77

77 A.2d 77

137 Conn. 318

CITY OF NORWALK v. TROMBETTA.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 5, 1950.

Willard J. Overlock, Norwalk, with whom, on the brief, was Robert B. Devine, Corporation Counsel, Norwalk for the appellant (plaintiff).

Donald H. McGannon, Norwalk, for the appellee (defendant).

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

O'SULLIVAN, Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action under § 2663 of the General Statutes to obtain reimbursement for money paid by it to the state for the partial support of Vincent Trombetta while he was hospitalized in a humane institution. The court found that Vincent, the defendant's son, was confined in a state hospital for the mentally ill from November 30, 1938, to December 31, 1947, and that the defendant is financially able to reimburse the plaintiff. It refused to find, however, that the plaintiff had made any payments to the state for Vincent's support. Judgment was rendered for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed.

One of the assignments of error is addressed to the conclusion, incorporated in the finding, that the plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proof as to payment by a fair preponderance of the evidence. This conclusion was not based upon the subordinate facts. If it had been, our inquiry would be limited to determining whether those facts support it. Dexter Yarn Co. v. American Fabrics Co., 102 Conn. 529, 540, 129 A 527. The conclusion, however, is reviewable, and may successfully be attacked, if the record reasonably discloses that the court applied an erroneous principle of law in evaluating the evidence. Johnson v. Shattuck, 125 Conn. 60, 62, 3 A.2d 299; Conn.App.Proc. § 96.

At the trial, the plaintiff sought to establish (1) that it was billed by the state for Vincent's support at each quarter day during the nine-year period of his hospitalization; (2) that the aggregate amount of the billings was $1422.45; and (3) that it paid this sum in full. To prove these facts the plaintiff offered in evidence certain state records. They were admitted after the court found that the entries contained therein were made in the regular course of business and that it was the regular course of business to make such entries. General Statutes § 7903; Weller v. Fish Transport Co., 123 Conn. 49, 60, 192 A. 317. These records, from the office of the commissioner of welfare, consist of several ledger sheets. They carry a running account between the plaintiff and the state based upon the former's obligation to the latter for the support of patients committed from Norwalk. Among the debits is one identified in writing as 'Vincent Trombetta Adm 11/30/38.' Vincent's name is not noted again except in two instances occasioned by his transfer from one institution to another. As explained by the supervisor of state hospital accounts, the absence of subsequent specific charges for Vincent was due to the departmental practice of combining into one entry the uniform quarterly charges for all patients for whom the plaintiff was responsible, and by this method the charge for Vincent's support was incorporated into the consolidated entries. The plaintiff also introduced into evidence the bills it had received from the state from 1943 to 1948. Every bill was in the amount of the consolidated debit entry for the particular quarter and stated that the charge was for a specified number of patients. Each bill, however, was accompanied by an attached list enumerating the persons for whose support the plaintiff was charged. Vincent's name appeared on all lists but one, and it is obvious from an...