John Meyer of Norwich, Inc. v. Old Colony Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1973
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHN MEYER OF NORWICH, INC. v. OLD COLONY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.

Page 286

325 A.2d 286

164 Conn. 633

JOHN MEYER OF NORWICH, INC. v. OLD COLONY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

April 6, 1973.

Louis A. Perras, Jr., South Dartmouth, Mass., of the Mass. bar, with whom was Francis J. Pavetti, New London, for appellant (defendant).

Jackson T. King, Jr., Norwich, with whom was Milton L. Jacobson, Norwich, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The complaint, in the first count, alleges that on January 29, 1969, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, a common carrier, certain goods of the value of $864.25, to be carried from Norwich to Oneonta, New York, and that the goods were not delivered and were lost. The second count alleges that on March 10, 1969, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant certain goods of the value of $940.25, to be carried from Norwich to East Patchogue, New York, and these were not delivered and were lost. The court rendered judgment that the plaintiff recover these amounts and the defendant has appealed.

The finding of facts made by the court consists of sixty-eight paragraphs and the defendant has attacked sixty-six paragraphs as being found without evidence. In addition, the defendant claims that the court erred in refusing to find fifteen paragraphs of its draft finding which the defendant claims are facts which were omitted or undisputed. We have stated repeatedly that a wholesale attack on the finding tends to cloud the real issue and casts doubt on the defendant's claims. State v. Miselis, 164 Conn. 110, 318 A.2d 102; Branford Sewer Authority v. Williams, 159 Conn. 421, 424, 270 A.2d 546. An examination of the record, briefs and appendices to the briefs made abundantly clear that no corrections are warranted.

The defendant assigns error contending that the court committed error in overruling various claims of law. Such claims must first be raised in the trial court. Practice Book § 223. The record fails to disclose that such claims were made and in argument before us the defendant's counsel admitted that he made no claims of law in the trial court. Such claims may not for the first time be raised here. 'Since no claims of law were raised in the court below, the appeal presents no question proper for our consideration. Practice Book §§ 223, 652.' Bigionti v. Argraves, 152 Conn. 700, 701, 204 A.2d 408, 409; State v. Dukes, 157 Conn. 498, 502, 255 A.2d 614; State v. Taylor, 153 Conn. 72, 86...