Dennison Bros. v. Waterville Cutlery Co.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1908
• Citation: 80 Conn. 596,69 A. 1022
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DENNISON BROS. v. WATERVILLE CUTLERY CO.

69 A. 1022

80 Conn. 596

DENNISON BROS.

v. WATERVILLE CUTLERY CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 2, 1908.

Error to Superior Court, New Haven County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.

Action by Dennison Bros, against the Waterville Cutlery Company. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

Michael J. Byrne, for plaintiffs in error. Nathaniel R. Bronson, for defendant in error.

THAYER, J. The plaintiffs requested the trial judge to make a finding of facts, and, after the finding had been filed, instead of proceeding under sections 794, 795, and 796 of the General Statutes of 1902 to have the same corrected, they caused the entire evidence and rulings in the case to be certified, pursuant to section 797, as a part of the record.

Among the reasons of appeal they assign as error the refusal of the judge to find certain facts as requested, and his finding, without evidence as they claim, of certain other facts. A correction of the finding is not asked for either in the reasons of appeal or in the brief which has been submitted on the part of the plaintiffs. The purpose of section 797 is to provide a method of correcting the finding additional to those provided in the three preceding sections of the statutes, and not only does it contemplate, but good procedure dictates, that the corrections shall be asked for in the reasons of appeal. Broughton v. Broughton, 77 Conn. 7, 9, 58 Atl. 226. The fact that the court erroneously found or neglected to find some fact does not entitle an appellant to a new trial. Notwithstanding such error the final judgment may be right. The ultimate question upon an appeal is did the court upon the findings of fact as corrected, if corrected, or upon the finding as it stands, if not corrected, commit any error, properly assigned, which was harmful to the appellant? In Broughton v. Broughton, 77 Conn. 7, 58 Atl. 226, where it appeared that the appellant was attempting to pursue the course of procedure contemplated by the statute, and that the appellee was not harmed by the failure to ask for a correction of the finding, the appellant was not deprived of his right to a correction by a strict enforcement of the statute. In the present case it is not clear from the appeal, and the brief in support of it, that the plaintiffs are seeking a correction of the finding. If so, they are not entitled to such correction, for an examination of the record shows that the findings and refusals to find, to which...