Uncas Paper Co. v. Corbin

Decision Date10 June 1903
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesUNCAS PAPER CO. v. CORBIN et al.

Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; William S. Case, Judge.

Action for goods sold, brought by the Uncas Paper Company against Maria A. Corbin and others (H. H. Corbin & Son). Verdict for plaintiff set aside as against the evidence, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Paragraph 1 of the complaint was as follows:

"The plaintiff is the actual, bona fide owner of the debt, claim, and chose in action hereinafter set forth, by a written assignment made and executed to it on February 18, 1901, by Cornell & Ward, a partnership composed of R. R. Cornell and Theodore H. Ward."

This paragraph was denied in the answer.

There was an application to rectify the appeal by an addition to the finding, to the effect that the plaintiff requested the court to rule and to instruct the jury that the defendants, by not having denied specially in their answer the right of the plaintiff to sue as an assignee of the claim of Cornell & Ward, but by filing an answer and counterclaim, and going to trial on the merits, had waived any question as to the capacity or right of the plaintiff to sue as assignee of the claim. This application was filed on April 22d, and supported by affidavit agreeably to the rules of the Supreme Court of Errors, § 14. The appeal had been taken to the April term of this court, which opened on April 28, and the case was reached and argued on that day.

Lucius Brown and Amos A. Browning, for appellant.

Cornelius J. Danaher, for appellees.

BALDWIN, J. (after stating the facts).

The verdict was set aside as against evidence, on the ground that the jury clearly mistook the law in finding that the plaintiff ever became the equitable and bona fide owner of the claim in suit. In the application to rectify the appeal, which was supported by the affidavit of counsel, it is averred that the appellant asked the trial court to rule that this question was not open under the pleadings. This averment has not been denied, and although the seven days ordinarily to be allowed under Rules of Court, § 14, had not elapsed when the case was called for argument, we think that, if it was intended to deny it, this should have been done, at latest, before the argument was commenced. See State v. Hunter, 73 Conn. 435, 445, 47 Atl. 665. We therefore grant the application, and shall treat the appeal as if one of the grounds on which it is based had been the refusal of the superior court to make the ruling requested.

There was no error in such refusal. The general denial of paragraph 1, while, under the rule, it admitted the due execution and delivery of the written assignment, put in issue the right of the plaintiff to sue as the actual and bona fide owner of the claim assigned. Woronieki v. Pariskiego, 74 Conn. 224, 226, 50 Atl. 562.

Under the statutes of this state, the assignee of a chose in action cannot sue in his own name without showing that he is its owner in his own right and for his own benefit, without accountability. Gaffney v. Tammany, 72 Conn. 701, 46 Atl. 156. The superior court set aside the verdict because it was of opinion that, in view of the evidence presented and of the evidence not presented, the jury must have mistaken the law upon this point. Great weight is due to this ruling of the trial judge, and all reasonable presumptions are to be made in its support. Loomis v. Perkins, 70 Conn. 444, 446, 447, 39 Atl. 797. His dissatisfaction with the verdict was shown immediately upon its return and acceptance, when, unasked, he directed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Koon v. Sampson
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 28 May 1945
    ...in Cottle v. Cole and Cole, 20 Iowa 481 Richards v. Morris Canal, 18 N. J. L. 250; Fosdick v. Croff, 22 How. Pr. 158; 12 Am. S. R. 131; 55 A. 165; S. 526; 1 Blackf. 69; 2 Bibb 126; 5 Mo. 54; 139 N.Y.S. 1002. The plaintiff is prejudiced because the court did not take the time to study this c......
  • Bradbury v. City of S. Norwalk
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 17 December 1907
    ...106, 21 Am. Dec. 732; Howe v. Raymond, 74 Conn. 68, 73, 49 Atl. 854; Burr v. Harty, 75 Conn. 127, 129, 52 Atl. 724; Uncas Paper Co. v. Corbin, 75 Conn. 675, 678, 55 Atl. 165; Fell v. Hancock M. L. I. Co., 76 Conn. 494, 496, 57 Atl. 175. In such cases the rule is that the court "should not s......
  • Lagana v. Stop & Shop, Inc.
    • United States
    • Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
    • 3 August 1962
    ...A. 577. On appeal, the evidence and the facts are to be taken in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Uncas Paper Co. v. Corbin, 75 Conn. 675, 677, 55 A. 165. 'The concurrence of * * * the jury especially when their conclusion is supported by the presiding judge, all of whom ......
  • State v. Chin Lung
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 26 October 1927
    ... ... of the trial court and all reasonable presumptions resolved ... in its support. Uncas Paper Co. v. Corbin, 75 Conn ... 675, 677, 55 A. 165. It must be remembered that the trial ... ...
  • 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