From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosenberg v. Burlingame

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 5, 1935
181 A. 394 (Conn. 1935)

Opinion

Submitted on briefs October 1st, 1935

Decided November 5th, 1935.

ACTION to recover for goods and services furnished the defendant, brought to the Court of Common Pleas for New London County and tried to the court, Waller, J.; judgment for the defendant and appeal by the plaintiff. No error.

Samuel I. Safenovitz, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Thomas M. Shields, for the appellee (defendant).


The plaintiffs sued to recover a balance claimed to be due upon an automobile purchased by the defendant from them and sums claimed to be due for supplies and services furnished in connection with it. The defendant pleaded full payment. The only question presented is whether or not the trial court erred in finding this defense proven. No substantial corrections can be made in the finding and it is sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the trial court.


Summaries of

Rosenberg v. Burlingame

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 5, 1935
181 A. 394 (Conn. 1935)
Case details for

Rosenberg v. Burlingame

Case Details

Full title:HARRY ROSENBERG ET AL. vs. ETHEL BURLINGAME

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Nov 5, 1935

Citations

181 A. 394 (Conn. 1935)
120 Conn. 695

Citing Cases

Kieffer v. Danaher, Tedford, Lagnese, Neal

A word should be said about "payment." While the court is not required to reach this special defense to all…