Schoefield Gear & Pulley Co. v. Schoefield
| Decision Date | 04 May 1898 |
| Citation | 70 Conn. 500,40 A. 182 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SCHOEFIELD GEAR & PULLEY CO. v. SCHOEFIELD. |
Appeal from superior court, New London county; George W. Wheeler, Judge.
Action by the Schoefield Gear & Pulley Company against Joseph J. Schoefield. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Motion by the Schoefield Gear & Pulley Company for leave to file an application for an order vacating the appeal. Denied.
The motion was presented to the court while holding its April term in the Third judicial district, together with the application which leave was asked to file; and a rule upon the adverse party to show cause against granting the motion was issued by order of the court returnable at a later day of the term. The application was verified by affidavit and stated the following case: Judgment was rendered on a verdict for damages in favor of the Schoefield Gear & Pulley Company against Joseph J. Schoefield, on November 18, 1897, by the superior court for New London county. The defendant gave notice of an appeal, and in due season filed a proposed finding of facts, prefaced by a written request that it should be made by the court. It simply recited certain evidence offered, the instructions to the jury requested by him, and those actually given. No other paper was filed in the nature of a request for a finding. The plaintiff made written objection to the filing of any finding by the court, on the ground that no proper request for one had been filed, and no statement made of the questions of law which the defendant desired to raise for review. The court (George W. Wheeler, J.) ruled that this ground of objection was insufficient, and proceeded to make and file a finding, which stated all these facts, in order to give the plaintiff an opportunity for a review of its action in that respect, and also that the failure to file a proper request had not impeded the court in preparing its finding, nor, in its opinion, the plaintiff in preparing its requests for a finding. The defendant thereupon proceeded to take and perfect his appeal to the May term, 1898, of the supreme court of errors to be held in and for the Second judicial district, and the same was allowed by the clerk. The plaintiff had applied in vain to the judge of the superior court who held the term at which the judgment was rendered, and made the finding to withdraw the latter, and direct the appeal to be erased from the record, and release the stay of execution. The prayer of the application was as follows: 'Wherefore your petitioner prays this honorable court in the exercise of its general appellate and superintending powers to issue appropriate process either to said judge who tried said case, or to the clerk of said court, or to both, requiring and ordering that said finding be withdrawn and erased from the record of said court in said case, and that said appeal be disallowed, and erased from the record, and that no further proceedings be had or allowed in the prosecution of said appeal; that the stay of execution caused by the filing of said finding, and the filing and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application of Title & Guaranty Co. of Bridgeport to Change Name to Bankers' Security Trust Co.
... ... General Statutes, § ... 763; Scholfield Gear & Pulley Co. v. Scholfield, 70 ... Conn. 500, 503, 40 A. 182. The object ... ...
-
Dibble v. Wolff
...what the claims of law were and it appears that the rights of the appellee will not be prejudiced. See Scholfield Gear & Pulley Co. v. Scholfield, 70 Conn. 500, 504, 40 A. 182; O'Neil v. Manufacturers' National Bank, 92 Conn. 667, 671, 104 A. 390; Practice Book § 423. That is the situation ......
-
Appeal of Bulkeley
...the time prescribed by statute, loses his right to have a finding. State v. Duffy, 66 Conn. 551, 34 Atl. 497; Scholfield G. & P. Co. v. Scholfield, 70 Conn. 500, 40 Atl. 182. If, however, the judge waives the protection to himself contained in the statutory provisions, and makes and files a......
-
State v. Dobkin
...the time prescribed by statutes, loses his right to have a finding. State v. Duffy, 66 Conn. 551, 34 Atl. 497; Scholfield G. & P. Co. v. Scholfield, 70 Conn. 500, 40 Atl. 182." Bulkeley's Appeal, 76 Conn. 454, 57 Atl. On the sole ground that the request for a finding was not filed within th......