J. L. Carpenter Co., Inc. v. Richardson
| Citation | 118 Conn. 322,172 A. 226 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 03 April 1934 |
| Parties | J. L. CARPENTER CO., Inc., v. RICHARDSON. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; E. Earle Garlick, Judge.
Action by J. L. Carpenter Company, Inc., against H. Smith Richardson, to recover for labor and materials furnished in repairing the engine of defendant's motorboat; tried to the court; judgment for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.
No error.
Frank L. Wilder and Dwight D. Graves, both of Bridgeport, for appellant.
Edward J. McCarthy, of Bridgeport, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
This action was brought to recover for labor and materials claimed to have been furnished in repairing the motor of defendant's speedboat. The case was tried to the court and judgment rendered for the defendant. From the finding these facts appear: In the autumn of 1929, the plaintiff overhauled the motor of the speedboat and was paid therefor. Later in that year, the defendant wrote expressing disappointment with the performance of the motor; and thereafter, the plaintiff replied that it was unable to tune up the motor at the time of the overhaul because the boat was out of the water, and that the motor undoubtedly required a minor adjustment which the plaintiff would be glad to take care of during the following spring. On May 13, 1930, the defendant advised that the job of tuning up the motor could be completed May 17, 1930, at Saugatuck. From May 17th to June 30th, the plaintiff performed work there upon the motor, furnishing labor and materials at a cost of $208.44; and, on the latter date, wrote the defendant it was unable to get the boat fixed up, making suggestions and asking for instructions before proceeding further. Thereafter, July 2d, the defendant wrote instructing that work be stopped, and later had the boat put in order by a third party. At no time subsequent to the autumn of 1929 did the defendant request anything but the completion of the overhaul job of the early fall of 1929 of tuning up the motor, and his first knowledge that the plaintiff was having serious difficulty in completing this work was the latter's letter of June 30, 1930. No evidence was offered as to the proportionate value of the services rendered and material furnished in merely tuning up the motor.
The appeal in this case is inartificially drawn and cannot be said to properly raise any question of law. The trial court found that some time between May 17 and June 30, 1930, the defendant had a casual conversation with a mechanic employed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krieg v. Union Pac. Land Resources Corp.
...knowledge and consent of the party to be held liable. Coryell v. Bluett, 251 Wis. 458, 29 N.W.2d 741 (1947); J. L. Carpenter Co. v. Richardson, 118 Conn. 322, 172 A. 226 (1934). The tests were not within the obligations of either Colhouer under his contract with U.P. or Krieg under his subc......
-
Jacobson Elec. Co. v. Rome Fastener Corp.
...the rule in cases such as Buckingham, Routh Co. v. George B. Wuestefeld Co., 114 Conn. 720, 722, 157 A. 414, and J. L. Carpenter Co. v. Richardson, 118 Conn. 322, 172 A. 226, is not The defendant, after eliciting from its witness that it had received an estimate from the plaintiff, asked th......
-
Velsmid v. Nelson
...has repeatedly stated that it is the function of a finding to state facts and not evidence. Practice Book § 619; Carpenter Co. v. Richardson, 118 Conn. 322, 324, 172 A. 226; C. I. T. Corporation v. Cohen,117 Conn. 159, 161, 167 A. 102; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 134. A finding that certain t......
-
Weller v. Mensinger
...of decision are improperly stated in the form of recitals of testimony rather than as findings of facts. Carpenter Co. v. Richardson, 118 Conn. 322, 324, 172 A. 226 (1934); Kane v. Kane, 107 Conn. 716, 721, 142 A. 466 (1928). It is undisputed, however, that the defendant was cooking french ......