Finnegan v. La Fontaine

• Decision Date: 07 April 1937
• Citation: 122 Conn. 561,191 A. 337
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: FINNEGAN v. LA FONTAINE et a. [*]

191 A. 337

122 Conn. 561

FINNEGAN v. LA FONTAINE et a. ^[*]

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 7, 1937

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Patrick B O'Sullivan, Judge.

Action by Frank J. Finnegan, administrator of the estate of Emma L La Fontaine, against William La Fontaine and others, to secure an order rescinding the transfer of certain stock to the named defendant and for other relief, which action was tried to the jury upon interrogatories. The issues were found for the plaintiff and a decree was rendered in his favor from which the named defendant appealed.

No error.

Cramer C. Hegeman, of South Norwalk, and Robert H. Gould, of Bridgeport, for appellant.

William F. Tammany, of South Norwalk, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN, JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

The substance of the complaint, brought by the plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Emma L. La Fontaine, was that on October 16, 1935, she came into possession of two hundred shares of the stock of the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company; that the stock was turned over to the defendant La Fontaine, her husband, to whom we shall hereafter refer as the defendant, to serve as collateral for a loan to be obtained for the purpose of paying certain of Mrs. La Fontaine's debts; that the stock was taken in the defendant's name and was pledged as collateral for a bank loan of $4,000, which is represented by a note signed by him; and that the defendant secured the stock in his own name through a mistake or by fraud. The prayer was only for equitable relief to protect the interest of the estate in the stock. The case was claimed for and tried to the jury. The trial court submitted the case to them upon a single interrogatory, whether Mrs. La Fontaine gave the stock to her husband, and they answered in the negative. The court accepted the verdict, and subsequently without the jury heard further evidence and ultimately gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant, appealing, has filed numerous assignments of error. These for the most part do not comply with our rules, some being too general to merit attention and others being very far from that specific assignment which our practice requires. Practice Book 1934, p. 101, § 345. We shall, however, consider the substantial errors claimed.

One of the claims is that the issue which the trial court submitted to the jury was not within the scope of the pleadings and was an insufficient basis upon which to render the judgment. The complaint is rather inartificially drawn, but its allegations make it fairly apparent that the plaintiff was relying upon the fact that Mrs. La Fontaine was the owner of certain shares of stock which had been transferred into the name of the defendant, and the relief sought was such as would serve to secure for the estate the value there might be in that stock over and above the claim of the bank which held it as collateral for the loan. In order to secure that relief, it was not necessary that the plaintiff prove the allegation of the complaint that the defendant secured the transfer of the stock to himself by fraud or mistake; unless in some way the right to the stock had been transferred to the defendant by Mrs. La Fontaine, the plaintiff was entitled to it or to any value it might have above the claim of the bank. The defendant filed a general denial. Under that pleading he might prove that the stock was given to him by her. McCarthy v. Tierney, 116 Conn. 593, 596, 165 A. 805; Practice Book, 1934, p. 46, § 104. An examination of the record discloses that the plaintiff made no claim that the transaction was secured by fraud or mistake. On the other hand, the defendant made a number of requests to charge which would be appropriate only to a claim that the stock had been given to him. Indeed, he did not claim that the transfer was for a valuable consideration, and the facts suggest no other basis upon which he could rest his title than that of a gift.

Moreover, the defendant caused to be incorporated in the record a transcript of the proceedings at the trial to the jury, and to test his claim we may consult it. Generally rulings made in the course of the trial are to be determined upon the basis of the finding alone, and we cannot supplement that finding by recourse to evidence printed to secure corrections in it or to review a ruling upon a motion to set a verdict aside; when, however, an appellant fails to cause to be included in the finding matter which is relevant to a claim of error he makes and that matter appears in the transcript of evidence he has brought before us and asked us to examine, " we must in common fairness be at liberty to use the information thus acquired in supplementing a manifestly incomplete finding." Friedler v. Hckeler, 96 Conn. 29, 34, 112 A. 651, 653. From the transcript it appears that early in the trial the court asked counsel if the case did not get down to the narrow issue whether there had been a loan or a gift to the defendant; counsel for the plaintiff answered, " Yes," and counsel for the defendant answered, " It seems so to us." It view of these statements, the trial court was justified in regarding that as the sole issue upon this phase of the case. It was within the fair scope of the pleadings and, if the defendant desired to claim a variance, he should have done so at the trial. Weiner v. Loew's Enterprises, Inc., 120 Conn. 581, 584, 181 A. 921.

The defendant asked the court to submit to the jury a number of interrogatories in addition to the one which it did submit. In an equitable action tried to the jury it is peculiarly within the discretion of the court to submit such interrogatories as it deems will be helpful in the making of the ultimate decision. Kornblau v. McDermant, 90 Conn. 624, 638, 98 A. 587. With one exception the interrogatories which the defendant sought to have submitted to the jury concerned subordinate facts which would not be controlling in determining the ultimate question whether or not there had been a gift of the stock to the defendant, and the trial court might properly refuse to submit them. Callahan v. Jursek, 100 Conn. 490, 494, 124 A. 31; Ford v. Dubiskie & Co., Inc., 105 Conn. 572, 583, 136 A. 560; Miller v. Connecticut Co., 112 Conn. 476, 481, 152 A. 879.

The interrogatory which falls within a different category was one which asked whether Mrs. La Fontaine arranged to have her stock transferred to the defendant in order to place it beyond the reach of her creditors and the risk of their attaching it. It appears in the finding that when in the course of the trial evidence was offered as to the insolvency of the estate of Mrs. La Fontaine the trial court excluded it, as it considered that in the interest of clarity and to avoid confusion in the minds of the jury a single inquiry would best serve the end of fairness to the litigants, the court stating that, if it later appeared necessary to go into that, or any other issue, it would hear such evidence without the jury. It did, after the acceptance of the verdict, hear evidence with reference to the ability of the estate to pay the claim presented and upon the question whether or not the stock was transferred by Mrs. La Fontaine to put it beyond the reach of her creditors.

In so doing, the court was undoubtedly seeking to apply what we recently said as to the function of interrogatories in an equitable action tried to the jury: " Where, in an equitable proceeding, a trial by jury is had, a general verdict usually will not serve the purpose intended, which is to inform the court as to facts upon which relief, if any, is to be granted. The proper course in most instances is to submit interrogatories covering only those issues upon which the court determines in its discretion the decision of the jury is appropriate and useful. If the answers of the jury are returned and accepted, the court determines any other issues necessary to a decision of the case and gives judgment accordingly." Dzubin v. Dzubin, 121 Conn. 646, 649, 186 A. 652, 653. In such an action the court has a discretion to determine what issues shall be submitted to the jury, deciding the other issues in the case itself. General Statutes, § 5625; Practice Book 1934, p. 58, § 153. When, however, a general claim for a jury trial of an equitable action is granted, unless the court shall later modify the order, the better practice would be to submit to the jury all such issues of fact as it may properly try. Gest v. Gest, 117 Conn. 289, 295, 167 A. 909. However, even if the court erred in not submitting to the jury the question whether the stock was transferred to the defendant to put it beyond the reach of Mrs. La Fontaine's creditors, that error would be immaterial in this case.

An executor or administrator has quite...