Case Name: Michael Pentino vs. Leo Tedesco et al.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1926-07-30
Citations: 104 Conn. 747
Docket Number: 
Parties: Michael Pentino vs. Leo Tedesco et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 104
Pages: 747–747

Head Matter:
Michael Pentino vs. Leo Tedesco et al.
Third Judicial District, New Haven,
June Term, 1926.
Wiiehler, C. J., Curtis, Maltbie, Haines and Hinman, Js.
Argued June 3d
decided July 30th, 1926.
James W. Carroll, for the appellants (defendants).
William K. Lawlor, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Reasons of appeal based upon exceptions to the finding are not well taken. The only other reason of appeal requiring consideration is the overruling of defendants' claim of law four, "that the plaintiff did not procure a customer who was ready, willing and able to buy the defendants' said property." Assuming that this reason of appeal is intended to claim that the subordinate facts do not support this conclusion, we are of opinion that the finding as amended does not support this conclusion.
There is error and a new trial is ordered.