McMahon v. Molloy

• Decision Date: 10 July 1929
• Citation: 147 A. 26,109 Conn. 505
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MCMAHON v. MOLLOY.

147 A. 26

109 Conn. 505

MCMAHON v. MOLLOY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 10, 1929

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John Rufus Booth Judge.

An order and decree of probate court allowed, as corrected, an account of Thomas F. Molloy, as guardian, and John A. McMahon appealed to the superior court, which rendered judgment modifying the account as allowed, by deducting from the credit side one item and approving it as modified, and John A. McMahon appeals. No error.

Finton J. Phelan, of Waterbury (A. A. Bablitz, of Lexington, Ky. on the brief), for appellant.

David M. Reilly, of New Haven (Philip Pond, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Reasons of appeal, errors 3, 4, and 5, are based upon the failure of the court to correct the finding by the addition of certain findings in accordance with appellant's motion to correct, which asks for each of these additions " for the reason that they claim the same is material, and that all the evidence on this matter justifies such finding." The statement of these reasons of appeal is at variance with the Rules of the Supreme Court of Errors, Remedy by Appeal § § 9--11, inclusive, together with the form for statement of errors in reasons of appeal. Practice Book, pp 308, 309, and 313. Consideration of the reason given for the correction claimed would compel us, contrary to our proper function, to review the evidence to determine where the weight lies. Dexter Yarn Co. v. American Fabrics Co., 102 Conn. 529, 129 A. 527; Hayward v Plant, 98 Conn. 374, 383, 119 A. 341. None of the...