Court Opinion

ID: 9865381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:36:50.660919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:50.356911
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Defendant’s motion for a reargument was confined to five points.
1. That the finding that plaintiff withdrew from the employment provided for in the contract because of defendant’s breaches thereof was not properly before the court. This so-called finding was a conclusion, and is assigned in reason of appeal 6, and found in the plaintiff’s claims of law 336, 337, 338, 339, 355, 356, 357, 358 and 360.
2 and 4. That the finding of the reason of plaintiff’s withdrawal was one of fact, not of law, and not reviewable on this record. The so-called finding is a conclusion of fact reached from subordinate facts and is reviewable as a question of law. Hayward v. Plant, 98 Conn. 374, 119 Atl. 341.
3. That the pleadings are inconsistent with a finding of voluntary retirement on March 1st, 1917, with a right to royalties thereafter accruing. As we construe *310the pleadings they are not inconsistent with the conclusion of voluntary retirement on March 1st, 1917, for the reasons stated in the opinion.
5. That the period of liability for commissions on domestic royalties should be made to correspond with the court’s other holdings. The rescript has been corrected so far forth as this point is applicable.
Plaintiff’s motion for a reargument was confined to the single point that the conclusions reached by the court upon plaintiff’s claim for royalties on single row' bearings were incorrect, and that plaintiff’s claim thereon should be sustained. This claim has been reexamined, and as a result we find no occasion to change the conclusion reached by us or to supplement the grounds of our opinion upon this point.