Case ID: conn_104/html/0743-01.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

Carl Arute vs. Celia Basso.
    First Judicial District, Hartford,
    May Term, 1926.
    Wheeler, C. J., Curtis, Maltbie, Haines and Hinman, Js.
    Argued May 5th
    decided May 29th, 1926.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment for the plaintiff rendered by the City Court of New Britain (Ailing, J.) in an action to recover a commission alleged to have been earned in the sale of the defendant’s real estate; taken to the Court of Common Pleas for Hartford County and tried to the court, Molloy, J.; judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $309, and appeal by the defendant.
    
      No error.
    
    
      Edward H. Kelly for the appellant (defendant).
    
      Frederick B. Hungerford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Per Curiam.

Paragraph third of the motion to .correct, that “defendant was not told who was to endorse the note for five hundred dollars,” should have been granted; other paragraphs of the motion were properly disallowed. If the motion to correct had been allowed in its entirety, the subordinate facts would still have supported the conclusions reached by the trial court, and the judgment. The motion to correct should have been accompanied by exceptions to the refusal to find. General Statutes, § 5830. Other errors assigned, in refusing to find additional facts as requested, are not properly before us, since they were not incorporated in the motion to correct; and this appeal was taken under General Statutes, §§ 5829, 5830.

There is no error.