Lockwood v. Nagy Bros., Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 November 1962
• Citation: 150 Conn. 691,186 A.2d 82
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Ralph J. LOCKWOOD v. NAGY BROTHERS, INC., et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 82

186 A.2d 82

150 Conn. 691

Ralph J. LOCKWOOD v. NAGY BROTHERS, INC., et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 6, 1962.

Ralph J. Lockwood, Bridgeport, appellant (plaintiff), pro se; with him on the brief was Robert R. Rosan, Milford.

Robert S. Seserman, Bridgeport, for appellees (defendants).

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This litigation is an aftermath of Franks v. Lockwood, 146 Conn. 273, 150 A.2d 215. In that case, James B. Franks recovered a judgment against Ralph J. Lockwood, Nagy Brothers, Inc., William Nagy and The Donrich Corporation. The judgment was paid by Lockwood. He now seeks indemnity from Nagy Brothers, Inc., and William Nagy for the amount of the judgment and costs and for the legal expenses which he incurred in defending the action. The trial court held that he had failed to sustain the burden of proof and rendered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff is not entitled to any corrections in the finding. He has again made in this appeal improper attempts, similar to those which were criticized in Franks v. Lockwood, supra, 275, 150 A.2d 217, to reconstruct the finding and allege error on a wholesale basis. He has even gone to the extent of filing in the trial court another 'motion to correct finding.' Apparently the reference on page 276, 150 A.2d on page 217 of the Franks case to § 172 of Maltbie, Connecticut Appellate Procedure, did not serve to alert him. Such a motion has not been a part of our appellate practice since 1931, when the new rules for appellate procedure were adopted following the repeal, in 1929, of various statutes, including § 5829 of the 1918 Revision, regulating appellate procedure. See Public Acts 1929, c. 301, § 14.

Indemnity is the right which a person has who has been compelled to pay what another should be forced to pay in full. It is also called exoneration. Like contribution, the doctrine affording reimbursement is based on equitable principles. Fidelity & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 124 Conn. 227, 231, 199 A. 93, 117 A.L.R. 565. To prevail, it was incumbent to the plaintiff to prove that, in equity, the defendants rather that he should bear the loss.

The plaintiff had contracted to build houses on four lots which he owned, grade the lots, cover them with topsoil and convey the properties to four purchasers. He delegated the work to The Donrich Corporation, in which he owned 50 percent of the stock. James Roberts, the foreman on the job, hired Nagy Brothers, Inc., to do the grading, and he directed William Nagy, its employee, to strip topsoil from some lots which the plaintiff, without Roberts' knowledge, had sold to Franks and to spread it on the four lots which the plaintiff was obligated to grade. As already stated,...