Higgins v. Hartford County Bar
| Decision Date | 07 March 1929 |
| Citation | 145 A. 20,109 Conn. 690 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | HIGGINS v. HARTFORD COUNTY BAR. |
Error from Superior Court, Hartford County; Earnest C. Simpson Judge.
Action by Joseph A. Higgins against the Hartford County Bar otherwise known as the Hartford County Bar Association, tried to the court. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Remanded, with direction.
Joseph A. Higgins, of Hartford, pro se.
James W. Carpenter, of Hartford, for defendant in error.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.
There is only one question at this time we need determine, namely whether the refusal of the trial court to make a finding of facts for purposes of appeal is justified upon this record. The ground of the court's decision was the failure of the plaintiff appellant to state the questions of law arising in the trial which he desired to have reviewed in violation of section 18 of the Practice Book 1922, p. 311, which reads: The primary purpose of this rule is to enable the opposing party and the judge to understand by reasonable inspection of this written request what the error or errors of law desired reviewed are. We have held that this rule is not an absolute one but may be waived at the discretion of the court.
Turning to the record, we find that the plaintiff sets up the claimed errors of law which he desired reviewed. Instead of separately stating them in the request for a finding, as the rule required, he mingled them in separate paragraphs with the paragraphs of the facts in the draft finding. Paragraph 91 of the draft finding states, " All of the above claims for relief were prayed for by the plaintiff in his petition to the court." These claims of error are also recited at length in the judgment.
The trial court had before it in the draft finding the claims of law which the plaintiff desired to raise on appeal. It was not a lack of knowledge of what these claims were which led the court to refuse to make a finding, but its interpretation of this rule to require that the request for a finding must contain a separate statement of the questions of law arising in the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rego v. Connecticut Ins. Placement Facility, 14133
... ... [219 Conn. 340] Stephen E. Goldman, with whom was Linda L. Morkan, Hartford, for appellant (defendant) ... Joseph A. Mengacci, Waterbury, for appellee ... 88, 517 N.E.2d 290 (1987); Summer v. Stark County Patrons' Mutual Ins. Co., 63 Ohio App. 369, 373, 26 N.E.2d 1021 (1940); Mutual of Enumclaw Ins ... ...
-
Oakland Heights Mobile Park, Inc. v. Simon, 12595
...parties. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Kluczinsky, 171 Conn. 516, 519, 370 A.2d 1306 (1976); see also Higgins v. Hartford County Bar Assn., 109 Conn. 690, 692, 145 A. 20 (1929). It would be fundamentally unfair to allow any defendant to await the time of trial to introduce an unpleaded d......
-
Broad v. Adams, Docket No. HDSP-137382 (Conn. Super. 9/26/2006)
...parties. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Kluczinsky, 171 Conn. 516, 519, 370 A.2d 1306 (1976); see also Higgins v. Hartford County Bar Assn., 109 Conn. 690, 692, 145 A. 20 (1929)." Gallogly v. Kurrus, Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield at Bantam, Docket No. CV 18-9808 (May 16,......
-
Zollo v. Warden, State Prison
... ... of their 'lack of legal education and experience ... ' Higgins v. Hartford County Bar Assn., 109 ... Conn. 690, 692, 145 A. 20 (1929). " This rule of ... ...