White v. Howd
| Decision Date | 28 May 1895 |
| Citation | 33 A. 915,66 Conn. 264 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | WHITE et al. v. HOWD. |
Appeal from court of common pleas, Litchfield county; Warner, Judge.
Action by James T. White and others against Salmon G. Howd. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal, and also file a motion for a new trial. New trial denied, and appeal dismissed.
Charles D. Burrill and John T. Hubbard, for appellants.
Samuel A. Herman, for appellee.
HAMERSLEY, J. Action on contract of sale to recover $20 damages. The case was tried to a jury, and the issue found for the defendant. The plaintiffs filed a written motion for a new trial on the ground of a verdict against evidence; and, under the provisions of chapter 51 of the Public Acts of 1898, the trial court has reported the evidence to this court for its action on the motion. This report contains certain "rulings" of the trial court on the admission and rejection of evidence. Such rulings do not belong to the record. The statute authorizes only a report of the evidence submitted to the jury, and the only question before this court is whether "the verdict was against such evidence." Errors in the rulings of the court, whether in the admission and rejection of evidence, or in the charge to the jury, may be reviewed on appeal, but cannot be considered in passing upon this motion. It is clear that the evidence reported was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The record before us also contains what purports to be an appeal, assigning, as reasons of appeal, specified errors of the court in the admission and rejection of evidence. There is no valid appeal. A finding by the court is necessary to the proper presentation of the questions of law arising on the admission and rejection of evidence; and the statute requires such finding to be made by the court, upon the request of the party intending to appeal, before an appeal for the revision of such questions of law is taken. The rales of court require such request to be in writing, and to contain a draft of the proposed finding and a statement of the questions of law, arising thereon, which it is desired to have reviewed. This request must be filed with the clerk in duplicate, one copy for the judge, and one copy for the counsel on the opposite side, who are entitled to file a counter finding. Neither the statute nor the rules have been complied with. No finding was made by the trial judge; and, from the statements made in the briefs on both sides, it appears that no request for a finding was made by the plaintiffs' counsel. If the appeal under such circumstances could be operative for any purpose, it would be only to review questions of law arising upon the pleadings; but the plaintiffs claim no error as to any such question, either in their briefs or reasons of appeal. Aside from these defects, however, the appeal is void, because it appears that the court below has rendered no judgment. It is plain, on reading the record, that there is a serious question as to the admissibility of some of the evidence admitted by the court. The plaintiffs have been deprived of their right to an appeal on this question by the failure of their counsel and of the trial judge to understand or to obey the provisions of the law. Such failure to observe the rules necessary for bringing a case before this court, and which in a less degree has characterized some other cases, seems to call for a statement which, except for such instances, would be deemed wholly unnecessary.
Besides the writ of error,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boucher
... ... M. Rosen and Samuel Gruber, both of Stamford, for appellant ... Richard ... S. Swain, of Bridgeport, and Henry B. White, of Greenwich, ... for the State ... Argued ... before MALTBIE, C.J., HAINES, BANKS, AVERY, and JENNINGS, JJ ... [119 Conn ... verdict rendered by the jury thereon. It does not raise the ... question of the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. White ... v. Howd, 66 Conn. 264, 267, 33 A. 915; First v ... Kalinowski, 109 Conn. 732, 144 A. 894; Wells v ... Radville, 112 Conn. 459, 466, 467, 153 A. 154 ... ...
-
France v. Munson
... ... In the absence of a ... judgment there can be no appeal. Cothren v. Atwood, ... 63 Conn. 576, 29 A. 13; White v. Howd, 66 Conn. 264, ... 266, 33 A. 915; Costecski v. Skarulis, 103 Conn ... 762, 131 A. 398. If the trial court committed reversible ... error ... ...
-
Belknap Sav. Bank v. Robinson
...of the real nature of an appeal. Styles v. Tyler, 64 Conn. 432, 30 Atl. 165; Bank v. Wellington, 61 Conn. 553, 30 Atl. 774; White v. Howd, 66 Conn. 264, 33 Atl. 915. The finding of the trial court appears to contain all such facts as the record shows to have been found by the court, and to ......
-
In re Shelton St. Ry. Co.
...and requirements are fixed by statute. These provisions must be strictly complied with in order to properly perfect an appeal. White v. Howd, 66 Conn. 264, 266. 33 Atl. 915. The statute says that the appeal must state the time and place of holding the court to which the appeal is taken. Pub......