[DOWNLOAD] "Martin v. Kavanewsky" by Supreme Court of Connecticut ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Martin v. Kavanewsky
- Author : Supreme Court of Connecticut
- Release Date : January 04, 1969
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
The first count of the complaint sought
recovery from the defendants for breach of
contract. In the second count, the plaintiff
alleged that, because of a breach of the contract
by the defendants, the plaintiff was prevented
from completing his contract. He sought damages in
quantum meruit for labor and materials supplied to
the land of the defendants. The case was tried to
a state referee sitting as a court who rendered
judgment for the defendants on the first count and
for the plaintiff in the sum of $2783 on the
second count. The defendants have appealed from
the judgment rendered on the second count. The defendants seek to have added to the finding
a number of paragraphs of the draft finding on the
ground that the facts stated in them were admitted
or undisputed. To secure an addition on this
ground, it is necessary for an appellant to point
to some part of the appendix, the pleadings, or an
exhibit properly before us, which discloses that
the appellee admitted that the fact in question
was true or that its truth was conceded to be
undisputed. State v. Dukes, 157 Conn. 498, 500,
255 A.2d 614; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. 158. That
a fact was testified to and was not directly
contradicted by another witness is wholly
insufficient. Practice Book 628(a). "The trier is
the judge of the credibility of witnesses. Banks
v. Adelman, 144 Conn. 176, 179, 128 A.2d 534, and
cases cited therein. A further requirement for
such an addition to the finding is that the
particular portion of the appendix, pleadings or
exhibit, as the case may be, relied upon as
requiring the addition, be pointed out in the
appellant's brief. Maltbie, op. cit., 328." Brown
v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 145 Conn. 290,
293, 141 A.2d 634; Drazen Lumber Co. v. Casner,
[157 Conn. 516]