Opinion
Argued February 7, 1962
Decided April 17, 1962
Actions to recover for services rendered the defendant, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford and tried to the court, Leipner, J.; judgments for the plaintiffs and appeals by the defendant. Error; judgments directed.
Isadore M. Mackler, for the appellant (defendant).
Julius Groher, for the appellees (plaintiffs in the second case).
John C. Sturges, for the appellee (plaintiff in the first case).
The plaintiffs sued to recover for services allegedly rendered the defendant as the result of their employment by the defendant's husband, a Chicago attorney. None of the plaintiffs had been employed directly by the defendant, nor had they had any oral or written communication with her. There was no evidence from which it could be found that the husband had any authority to employ the plaintiffs on account of the defendant or to obligate her to compensate the plaintiffs.
The defendant assigned as error that certain findings were made without supporting evidence. The plaintiffs have not filed, in appendices to their briefs, evidence to support the challenged findings. See Cushing v. Salmon, 148 Conn. 631, 632, 173 A.2d 543; Engelke v. Wheatley, 148 Conn. 398, 411, 171 A.2d 402. Consequently those findings must be deleted. Without them, the conclusions of the court are unsupported.