Case ID: conn_104/html/0742-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eva La Mire vs. Earl Houghton.
    First Judicial District, Hartford,
    May Term, 1926.
    Wheeler, C. J., Curtis, Maltbie, Haines and Hinman, Js.
    Argued May 4th
    decided May 29th, 1926.
    Action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged -to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the court, Brown, J.; judgment rendered for defendant, and appeal by plaintiff.
    
      No error.
    
    
      Edward H. Kelly, for the appellant (plaintiff).
    
      A. Storrs Campbell, for the appellee (defendant).
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff attempted to corrrect the finding by the method provided in General Statutes, §§ 5829, 5830 and 5831; thereafter she abandoned this method for the method provided in General Statutes, § 5832. She has not pursued either method in accordance with our practice. Rules of Supreme Court of Errors, Practice Book, p. 309, § 11, and Form 3, page 313. For these reasons her assignments of error as to corrections claimed in the finding must be disregarded.

Errors predicated upon the failure of the subordinate facts to support the court’s conclusions that none of the acts of negligence on the part of the defendant as alleged have been established are very plainly without merit. The subordinate facts do support the conclusions reached by the trial court.

There is no error.