From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. Fairchild and Shelton Company

Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, Bridgeport, October Term, 1925
Dec 23, 1925
131 A. 392 (Conn. 1925)

Opinion

Argued November 4th, 1925

Decided December 23d 1925.

ACTION by the plaintiff to recover the unpaid balance of commissions claimed to be due under a contract with the defendant, brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County and tried to the court, Nickerson, J.; judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $1,585.72, and appeal by the defendant. No error.

Edward K. Nicholson, for the appellant (defendant).

Clifford B. Wilson, for the appellee (plaintiff).


The defendant admitted that there was still due the plaintiff under this contract $78.78, but denied that anything further was due. For the purpose of having the finding show that nothing further was due, defendant appeals from the refusal of the trial court to find facts from which it must follow that the plaintiff had been paid his commissions exclusive of the $78.78. We have examined the excerpts from the evidence attached to the motion to correct and find that the refusal of the trial court to find the facts requested is not erroneous, since the evidence upon this matter was conflicting.


Summaries of

Murray v. Fairchild and Shelton Company

Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, Bridgeport, October Term, 1925
Dec 23, 1925
131 A. 392 (Conn. 1925)
Case details for

Murray v. Fairchild and Shelton Company

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE M. MURRAY vs. THE FAIRCHILD AND SHELTON COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, Bridgeport, October Term, 1925

Date published: Dec 23, 1925

Citations

131 A. 392 (Conn. 1925)
103 Conn. 758