Ferguson v. Cripps
| Decision Date | 25 July 1913 |
| Citation | 87 A. 792,87 Conn. 241 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | FERGUSON v. CRIPPS. CRIPPS v. FERGUSON. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Howard J. Curtis, Marcus H. Holcomb, and Gardiner Greene, Judges.
Counter actions by James Ferguson against George F. Cripps, and by George F. Cripps against James Ferguson, for an accounting of a partnership. The actions were consolidated for trial, and, from a judgment in favor of James Ferguson, George F. Cripps appeals. Affirmed.
Counter actions by partners, each asking for an accounting, judgment for the amount found due upon such accounting, and (in Cripps v. Ferguson) the appointment. The committee appointed to hear the facts made a report showing a balance due Ferguson; to this report a remonstrance was filed by Cripps to which Ferguson demurred. The court sustained in part this demurrer, and Cripps asked leave to file additional reasons of remonstrance, which was denied. Ferguson thereupon moved that those reasons of appeal not found insufficient upon the demurrer be made more specific; the motion was granted and a demurrer to the reasons of remonstrance as thus amended was sustained by the court. Cripps appeals from the rulings upon each of the demurrers and from the denial of his motion for leave to file additional reasons of remonstrance.
George E. Beers and Charles H. Harriman, both of New Haven, for appellant.
Howard C. Webb, of New Haven, for appellee.
THAYER, J. (after stating the facts as above). These cases have been tried as one and will be so treated by us; Ferguson being referred to as the plaintiff and Cripps as the remonstrant. The pleadings in each case show that a partnership, which had been dissolved, had existed between these parties from September, 1904, to July, 1906, and the only issue upon the pleadings was as to which, if either, partner was indebted to the other upon a proper statement of the partnership account and the amount of the indebtedness. The cases were referred by the court to a committee for the trial of this issue. The principal questions before us relate to the court's rulings in sustaining demurrers to the remonstrance of Cripps to the acceptance of the committee's report. There was a demurrer to each paragraph of the remonstrance.
The first 17 reasons of remonstrance were held insufficient by the court upon the original demurrer. The first demurrer to the remaining 30 reasons of remonstrance was based upon the fact that the rulings upon evidence therein complained of are not shown in the committee's report, although it there appears that the parties were notified to present any exceptions to rulings upon evidence, which they desired to raise before the court, that they might be incorporated in the report The demurrer to these reasons upon this ground was properly overruled. It was not incumbent upon the remonstrant, if he desired to raise these questions, to present his exceptions to the committee and have the facts necessary to present them appear in the report, although this method, as was said in Fox v. South Norwalk, 85 Conn. 237, 239, 241, 82 Atl. 642, is a proper, and in many cases a desirable, one for getting the facts upon the record. By failing to accept the committee's invitation to thus have his exceptions incorporated in the report, he did not waive his right to afterwards present them by remonstrance in the usual way.
It will be unnecessary to consider in detail each of the 17 reasons of remonstrance which were held to be insufficient by the trial court. In Fox v. South Norwalk, above referred to, we said that a party claiming to be aggrieved by the conduct or rulings of a committee must "file a remonstrance against the acceptance of it and therein state specifically the rulings complained of with such facts as it is claimed show their materiality to the issue before the committee, and that they were wrong and harmful to the remonstrant." Where the facts are thus spread upon the record, an issue of law or of fact may be presented for the determination of the court by demurrer or denial. It is not sufficient to allege that the committee erred in finding a certain fact from the evidence, or that the evidence did not support a fact found, or that such a fact was found contrary to the evidence or without evidence and contrary to the evidence. A denial of such allegations as these would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal of Cohen
...... Seymour Trust Co. v. Hershowitz, 103 Conn. 532, 534,. 131 A. 399; Lalley v. Bridgeport, [117 Conn. 82] 96. Conn. 501, 503, 114 A. 678; Ferguson v. Cripps, 87. Conn. 241, 244, 87 A. 792; Practice Book 1922, p. 266, §. 102. When he overruled the remonstrances and appeals were. taken to this ......
-
Fitch v. State
...237, 152 A.L.R. 604; Gowdy v. Gowdy, 120 Conn. 508, 509, 181 A. 462; Liefeld v. Coffin, 103 Conn. 279, 283, 130 A. 576; Ferguson v. Cripps, 87 Conn. 241, 245, 87 A. 792; Practice Book §§ 172, 352, 353; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., § The crux of the case stems from two sentences in a letter sent......
-
Appeal of Cohen
...Seymour Trust Co. v. Hershowitz, 103 Conn. 532, 534, 131 A. 399; Lalley v. Bridgeport, 96 Conn. 501, 503, 114 A. 678; Ferguson v. Cripps, 87 Conn. 241, 244, 87 A. 792; Practice Book 1922, p. 266, § 102. When he overruled the remonstrances and appeals were taken to this court, it became our ......
-
State v. Giant's Neck Land & Improvement Co.
...is but a request to the trial court to weigh the evidence in support of and contrary to the finding of the referee. Ferguson v. Cripps, 87 Conn. 241, 245, 87 A. 792. The ground of remonstrance was improper. Lalley v. Bridgeport, 96 Conn. 501, 503, 114 A. 678. The demurrer contained a paragr......