Hine v. McNerney

• Decision Date: 29 March 1922
• Citation: 116 A. 610,97 Conn. 308
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HINE v. McNERNEY.

116 A. 610

97 Conn. 308

HINE v. McNERNEY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 29, 1922

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; John R. Booth Judge.

Action of replevin by John W. Hine against Peter J. McNerney. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.

The complaint alleges that on March 9, 1920, the plaintiff sold and delivered a motor truck to John La France under a conditional bill of sale in writing, which was recorded four days later, and a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit A; that La France failed to make the payments which by the conditions of the sale described in this bill became due on November 1 1920, December 1, 1920, and January 1, 1921, when the last payment was due; that thereafter the plaintiff tried to take possession of the motor truck, but found it in the hands of the defendant, a deputy sheriff, who was holding it under attachment in an action in which the L. J. Carroll Motors Company was plaintiff and one Albert Grant defendant; and that, after demand made upon him, the defendant wrongfully detained the motor truck from the plaintiff, who is the owner thereof and entitled to its possession. The defendant denied these allegations except his detention of the truck under the attachment; and, in a second defense, he set up that Albert Grant on March 9, 1920, and at all times thereafter, was the owner of the motor truck, and that the pretended sale and delivery of the truck by Grant to the plaintiff and by the plaintiff to La France, on March 9, 1920, were not made in good faith, but solely for the purpose of hindering and delaying the creditors of Grant in collecting their debts from him and of defrauding Grant's creditors. The plaintiff's reply denied all the allegations of the second defense. The court found these issues for the plaintiff and rendered judgment that he retain possession of the replevied motor truck.

Harry A. Goldstein, of Bridgeport, for appellant.

David M. Reilly, of New Haven, for appellee.

BURPEE, J.

For reasons of appeal the appellant defendant states four errors of which he complains.

The first is that the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff. He does not " state the special errors complained of distinctly," nor " the decision of the court upon any question or questions of law arising in the trial" by which he thinks himself aggrieved. General Statutes, § § 5820, 5833. Such an assignment does not meet the requirements of these statutes; it is too general, and will be disregarded. Harper Machinery Co. v. Ryan-Unmack Co., 85 Conn 359, 363, 82 A. 1027. " This is a sort of blanket objection which this court will not consider." Fagerholm v. Nielson, 93 Conn. 380, 387, 106 A. 333 335.

The second reason assigned is that the court erred in overruling the defendant's claims of law numbered 1 to 8 and 12 to 16, inclusive, as they appear in the finding. Of these all but one are not really claims of law. During the trial the defendant undertook to establish his second defense by evidence sufficient to prove the necessary facts; and, concerning the judgment to be rendered, he made certain claims which related to the sufficiency of the evidence to prove those facts. The trial court overruled these claims, and on the evidence found that the things depended on by the defendant were not facts and that certain things disputed by him were facts. No question of law was presented to the trial court to decide. The overruling by the trial court of claims concerning facts to be found on the evidence will not be regarded by this court as reasons of appeal.

In the third assignment of error the defendant complains that the court erred in finding all the principal facts stated in the finding without evidence and contrary to the...