Dimon v. Romeo

• Decision Date: 15 June 1923
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DIMON v. ROMEO ET AL.

121 A. 352

99 Conn. 197

DIMON v. ROMEO ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 15, 1923

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Christopher L. Avery Judge.

Action by Bertha I. Dimon against Domenico Romeo and others to recover damages for breach of a written contract to purchase milk of the plaintiff for one year, brought to the superior court for Fairfield County and tried to the jury before Avery, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff to recover $6,077.75, and appeal by the defendants. No error.

Israel J. Cohn and Pasquale Vioni, both of Bridgeport, for appellants.

Henry E. Shannon and James C. Shannon, both of Bridgeport, for appellee.

CURTIS, J.

Upon the trial it was an admitted fact that on August 12, 1919, a written contract was entered into and executed in the following terms, as a result of negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendant Domenico Romeo, who signed it as appears thereon:

" This agreement witnesseth, that the Romeo Farm, by Domenick Romeo, agrees to take the milk furnished by Bertha I. Dimon for a period of one year from date, the price to be the same paid by the Connecticut Milk Dealers' Association, and to call for the same each day, and pay for the same each and every week. Bertha I. Dimon agrees to furnish not less than three hundred and fifty (350) quarts each day, beginning August 25, 1919.

Romeo Farm--Domenick Romeo.

Bertha I. Dimon.

Witness: Ernest H. Reed."

The plaintiff alleged in her amended complaint that the defendants, Domenico Romeo and his two brothers, Pasquale and Salvatore, were copartners in business trading under the name of Romeo Farm, and that the written contract was between her and this partnership.

The defendants denied in their pleadings that they were engaged as partners in the cheese-making business at Romeo Farm, or that Domenico was their agent in any way in conducting such an enterprise.

The finding sets forth that the plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that: (1) On and before August 12, 1919, the plaintiff was the owner of a farm situated in the town of Shelton and was engaged in producing milk for sale, said farm consisting of about 300 acres, and the plaintiff kept thereon 45 cows for said purpose and was producing about 400 quarts of milk per day. (2) On said date, the plaintiff and defendants entered into a written agreement by which the defendants agreed to purchase milk from the plaintiff for a period of one year from August 25, 1919, the plaintiff agreeing to furnish to the defendants not less than 350 quarts of milk each day and the defendants agreeing to call for said milk each day and to pay for the same each and every week, the prices to be the same paid by the Connecticut Milk Producers' Association--and further that the defendants refused to carry out such contract to the damage of the plaintiff to the amount of $6,077.75.

The defendants claimed to have proved that Pasquale and Salvatore Romeo were not in August, 1919, or at any time, in any partnership relation with Domenico Romeo, and that he was never the agent of either or both in connection with any business.

The jury found the issues for the plaintiff, and therefore found that Domenico Romeo in making the contract with the plaintiff was acting for himself and his brothers, doing business as partners under the name of Romeo Farm.

The defendants Pasquale and Salvatore Romeo moved that the verdict against them be set aside as not supported by the evidence relating to the existence of the partnership, and appealed from the action of the court in denying such motion and all the evidence in the case has been made a part of the record in support of such ground of appeal.

A careful examination of the evidence discloses that under the evidence the jury could reasonably have found facts proven from which they could reasonably have reached the conclusion that prior to August 12, 1919, the brothers, Pasquale Salvatore, and Domenico Romeo, had entered as partners into the business of cheese making at Romeo Farm; that the business was called Romeo Farm until subsequently they called it the Italian Cheese Manufacturing Company and that under the name of Romeo Farm they, through Domenico Romeo, entered into a written contract with the plaintiff in the terms above set forth, and breached the same and damaged the plaintiff to the extent claimed.

The motion to set aside the verdict was therefore properly denied.

Upon the trial, before any evidence was produced by the plaintiff to establish the partnership relation, she offered evidence of statements made to her by Domenico Romeo during her negotiations with him leading up to the execution of the written contract, which tended to prove that there was a cheese-making business being started at Romeo Farm by the three Romeo brothers, and that the contract in question was made in behalf of this business. The defendants Pasquale and Salvatore Romeo objected to the admission of these statements or admissions of Domenico as affecting them.

The plaintiff alleged in the complaint that Domenico was a partner with the other defendants in conducting a business and claimed that his statements in reference to such business in the negotiations for the purchase of milk for that business would...