Case Name: Carl Arute vs. Celia Basso
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1926-05-29
Citations: 104 Conn. 743
Docket Number: 
Parties: Carl Arute vs. Celia Basso.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 104
Pages: 743–744

Head Matter:
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.
Edward H. Kelly for the appellant (defendant).
Frederick B. Hungerford, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion:
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.