Dressel v. Gregory
| Decision Date | 15 December 1931 |
| Citation | 114 Conn. 718,157 A. 417 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DRESSEL v. GREGORY. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Walter M Pickett, Judge.
Action by Max C. Dressel against Frank D. Gregory to recover damages for the alleged representation of the year of manufacture un automobile sold plaintiff, brought to court of common pleas in New Haven County and tried to the court. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
No error.
Robert J. Woodruff and Louis Shafer, both New Haven, for appellant.
Arthur Klein, of New Haven, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant for damages due to a fraudulent misrepresentation as to the year of manufacture of an automobile purchased of the latter. The defendant's principal contention upon the appeal is that the real purchaser of the car was the wife of the plaintiff for whom he was acting as agent in the transaction. The automobile was bought under a conditional bill of sale, and a separate memorandum of the sale was made at the time. Both these documents were signed by the plaintiff but not by his wife. Notes were given for the unpaid part of the purchase price and these also were signed by the plaintiff alone and were later paid with money furnished by him. No cash was paid at the time of the sale but an automobile was delivered to the defendant at an agreed price to be applied toward the purchaser of the car in question. The automobile purchased was registered in the wife's name its registration being transferred from another automobile she had owned. Thereafter this car was insured in the name of the wife and taxed as her property. The trial court has found upon sufficient evidence that the defendant looked to and dealt with the plaintiff personally and relied upon his credit and responsibility throughout the entire transaction. Upon these facts we cannot hold unreasonable or improper the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiff was the actual purchaser of the car in his own right.
Four paragraphs of the finding seek to present rulings on evidence. The ruling stated in the first paragraph was too plainly right to justify discussion. The second presents this situation: A witness, a dealer in used automobiles, was allowed to state upon the basis of a manual generally accepted in the trade as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kennedy
...her to coordinate and evaluate the information in the appraisal and to make her evidence of probative value. 6 See Dressel v. Gregory, 114 Conn. 718, 719, 157 A. 417 (1931); Vigliotti v. Campano, 104 Conn. 464, 466, 133 A. 579 (1926); cf. State v. White, 37 Conn.Sup. 796, 802, 437 A.2d 145 ......
-
E. J. Kelley Co. v. Carlin
...to coordinate and evaluate the information derived from those sources so as to make his evidence of probative value. Dressel v. Gregory, 114 Conn. 718, 719, 157 A. 417; see Burn v. Metropolitan Lumber Co., 94 Conn. 1, 6, 107 A. 609. The witness at no time gave his own opinion as to the reas......
-
Rogoff v. Southern New England Contractors Supply Co. Inc.
...set up in the finding. Practice Book 1934, p. 105, § 359. Pepe Co., Inc., v. Apuzzo, 98 Conn. 807, 811, 120 A. 681; Dressel v. Gregory, 114 Conn. 718, 719, 157 A. 417. They cover over twenty pages of the printed record. The second so-called ‘ruling,’ for example, contains no less than seven......
-
Barton v. American Dodge, Inc.
...enable him to co-ordinate and evaluate the information in the manual and to make his evidence of probative value.' Dressel v. Gregory, 114 Conn. 718, 720, 157 A. 417, 418. Furthermore, 'the qualification of an expert is in the discretion of the trial court * * *. The underlying principle is......