Samaha v. Mauro
| Decision Date | 04 March 1926 |
| Citation | 132 A. 455,104 Conn. 300 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SAMAHA v. MAURO. |
Appeal from District Court of Waterbury; Harry J. Beardsley, Judge.
Action by Josephine Samaha, P. P. A., against Vincenzo Mauro, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence of defendant in operating his automobile. Judgment for plaintiff for $1,000, and defendant appeals. No error.
Ralph C. Coppeto and Thomas F. Devine, both of Waterbury, for appellant.
Max R Traurig, of Waterbury, for appellee.
The first seven of the assignments of error relate to claimed errors of the trial court in its conclusions based upon the facts. The appellant does not contend that the facts as found do not support the conclusions sought to be attacked, but his purpose and attempt is to deprive these conclusions of such support by obtaining correction of the finding as to numerous material subordinate, and ultimate facts. In furtherance of this purpose counsel adopted the method provided by section 5832 of the General Statutes to the extent of making all the evidence part of the record in lieu of a motion to correct but failed to supply the further essential requirement that the appellate court be given a basis for the making of corrections of the finding by assignments of error fairly presenting such corrections as are claimed. Hellman v Karp, 105 A. 678, 93 Conn. 317. It has been repeatedly and emphatically pointed out that, in the absence of an assignment of error presenting a claim for correction of the finding, this court will not consider such correction even though the evidence be filed and printed under section 5832. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Cambell, 116 A 186, 97 Conn. 251, and cases cited therein at page 254. The procedure to be followed in pursuing both statutory methods for correction of findings, under sections 5829, 5830 and 5831, and under section 5832, is outlined in Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Cambell, supra, and a form is suggested for assigning as errors the corrections sought under section 5832. Such assignments being lacking in the record before us, we are unable to consider the corrections desired, and in the absence of such corrections the conclusions of the trial court against which assignments 1 to 7, inclusive, are directed must remain unaffected.
The remaining reason of appeal assigns as error that the amount of the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birgel v. Heintz
...and the law furnishes no precise rule for their assessment. Russakoff v. Stamford, 134 Conn. 450, 455, 58 A.2d 517; Samaha v. Mauro, 104 Conn. 300, 302, 132 A. 455; Knight v. Continental Automobile Mfg. Co., 82 Conn. 291, 293, 73 A. 751.' Lopez v. Price, supra, 145 Conn. 569, 145 A.2d 132. ......
-
Wochek v. Foley
...law furnishes no precise rule for their assessment. Russakoff v. Stamford, 134 Conn. 450, 455, 58 A.2d 517 [1948]; Samaha v. Mauro, 104 Conn. 300, 302, 132 A. 455 [1926]; Knight v. Continental Automobile Mfg. Co., 82 Conn. 291, 293, 73 A. 751 [1909]. The only practical test to apply to a ve......
-
Bodzon v. Beaudoin, No. CV 03 0519314 S (Conn. Super. 5/19/2006)
...law furnishes no precise rule for their assessment. Russakoff v. Stamford, 134 Conn. 450, 455, 58 A.2d 517 [1948]; Samaha v. Mauro, 104 Conn. 300, 302, 132 A. 455 [1926]; Knight v. Continental Automobile Mfg. Co., 82 Conn. 291, 293, 73 A. 751 [1909]. The only practical test to apply to a ve......
-
Gorczyca v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
...not lend itself readily to mathematical computation. Russakoff v. City of Stamford, 134 Conn. 450, 455, 58 A.2d 517; Samaha v. Mauro, 104 Conn. 300, 302, 132 A. 455; Knight v. Continental Automobile Mfg. Co., 82 Conn. 291, 293, 73 A. 751. The amount of the award is a matter within the provi......