Johnson v. Consolidated Industries, Inc.

Decision Date16 March 1966
Citation153 Conn. 522,218 A.2d 380
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesWalter E. JOHNSON v. CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.

Sebastian J. Russo, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

John D. Fassett, New Haven, for appellee (named defendant).

Before KING, C.J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, SHANNON and HOUSE, JJ.

ALCORN, Associate Justice.

This case began by a complaint stating several causes of action in four counts against three defendants. A fifth count was later added by amendment. In the course of its progress to the present, all but the first count, asserting a breach of contract by the named defendant, have, with the plaintiff's acquiescence, fallen by the wayside. The subject matter of the contract is the drop forging of aluminum shoes for racehorses which the plaintiff calls aluminum racing plates.

The material allegations of the first count of the complaint are, in substance, that on June 4, 1958, and for some time before that, the plaintiff manufactured racing plates. The named defendant, henceforth called Consolidated, is in the dropforging business. The plaintiff had done business with Consolidated for eleven years. He furnished aluminum stock to Consolidated which it stored and used to fill the plaintiff's orders for drop forgings. There was an agreement and understanding that the plaintiff would order and pay Consolidated for drop-forging the material supplied by the plaintiff, and Consolidated agreed that the resulting aluminum racing plates 'would be in a usable condition fit for use by racing horses.' From September through October, 1957, the plaintiff submitted orders to Consolidated, but in doing the drop forging, Consolidated overheated the stock so that about 17,000 racing plates were defective, brittle, and unfit for use by racehorses. As a result of Consolidated's failure to perform its agreement, the plaintiff claimed $50,000 damages.

Consolidated admitted only that it is in the drop- forging business and had dealt with the plaintiff for eleven years. On the other disputed allegations of the first count the parties went to trial before a jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the court directed a verdict for Consolidated and, thereafter denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment rendered on the verdict, assigning as error the court's action in directing the verdict and in denying the motion to set it aside.

'Although a directed verdict is not favored, it is justified if on the evidence the jury could not reasonably and legally reach any other conclusion than that embodied in the verdict as directed.' McDonald v. Connecticut Co., 151 Conn. 14, 17, 193 A.2d 490; White v. E. & F. Construction Co., 151 Conn. 110, 112, 193 A.2d 716. In reviewing the action of the trial court, in first directing and thereafter refusing to set aside the verdict, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Santor v. Balnis, 151 Conn. 434, 435, 199 A.2d 2; Blados v. Blados, 151 Conn. 391, 393, 198 A.2d 213. Since the plaintiff seeks to recover solely on the ground that Consolidated violated the terms of an express contract, the evidence offered in proof of the contract relied upon assumes primary importance. Unless that evidence would permit the jury to conclude that the contract was proved, the ensuing questions of a breach and, finally, of resulting damage do not arise.

The jury could have found that the transaction between the parties took the following form: There was no formal written contract setting forth any terms and conditions. All dealings throughout the years were oral. The plaintiff submitted orders to Consolidated by telephone or by a personal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Pedrick v. Peoria & E. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 18 d4 Maio d4 1967
    ...(or fairminded or impartial) men cannot differ in the conclusion to be reached from the evidence. Connecticut-Johnson v. Consolidated Industries, Inc., 153 Conn. 522, 218 A.2d 380; Lombardi v. J. A. Bergren Dairy Farms, Inc., 153 Conn. 19, 213 A.2d 449. Delaware-Parks v. Ziegler, 221 A.2d 5......
  • Pinto v. Spigner
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 24 d3 Maio d3 1972
    ...in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Leary v. Johnson, supra, 159 Conn. 102, 267 A.2d 658; Johnson v. Consolidated Industries, Inc., 153 Conn. 522, 524, 218 A.2d 380; Rickert v. Fraser, 152 Conn. 678, 682, 211 A.2d The jury reasonably and logically could have found the following fa......
  • Samose v. Hammer-Passero Norwalk Chiropractic Group, P.C.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 27 d3 Março d3 1991
    ...to set the verdict aside, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Johnson v. Consolidated Industries, Inc., 153 Conn. 522, 524, 218 A.2d 380 (1966); Yeske v. Avon Old Farms School, Inc., 1 Conn.App. 195, 201, 470 A.2d 705 (1984).' Kegel v. McNeely, supr......
  • Terminal Taxi Co. v. Flynn
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 2 d2 Abril d2 1968
    ...motion to set aside the verdict, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Johnson v. Consolidated Industries, Inc., 153 Conn. 522, 524, 218 A.2d 380; Lucier v. Meriden-Wallingford Sand & Stone Co., 153 Conn. 422, 427, 216 A.2d 818; Blados v. Blados, 151 Conn. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT