From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shannon v. Mereness

Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, New Haven, January Term, 1915
Mar 26, 1915
93 A. 529 (Conn. 1915)

Opinion

An appellant is entitled as matter of right to a finding of facts, if properly requested, notwithstanding the trial judge may be of the opinion, and so express himself in the memorandum of decision, that the case presented no questions of law and that no such rulings as those set forth in the request were made. The memorandum of decision is not a finding of facts and cannot be used by this court as a substitute for it.

Submitted on briefs January 26th, 1915

Decided March 26th, 1915.

APPLICATION of the plaintiff and appellant to this court, for an order requiring the trial judge ( Burpee, J.) to make and file a finding of facts.

Henry E. Shannon and Frank L. Wilder, for the plaintiff.

Edward K. Nicholson, for the defendant.


The above-entitled case was tried upon issues of fact to the court in the Superior Court in Fairfield county, and judgment therein rendered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon, in due course and form, requested the trial judge to make and file a finding of facts for the purposes of appeal. The request stated that it was desired to have six questions of law reviewed. Two of these questions were, in effect, the general one whether there was error in the rendition of the judgment; the other four whether the court did not err in making certain recited rulings. The judge denied the request, and filed a memorandum of his reasons for so doing. In substance these reasons were that the court made no such rulings as those set out in the request, and that the case under the facts found presented no questions of law.

The court's conclusions of fact, as stated in the memorandum, appear to demonstrate the correctness of these propositions, and the probable practical uselessness to the plaintiff of a finding, unless he can reasonably ask for its correction in some material respect as being without foundation in evidence. But unfortunately the memorandum may not be used by us as a substitute for a finding of facts, and we are compelled to govern our action without reference to its statements. As a practical matter it would doubtless be reasonably safe to assume that a finding filed would be as conclusive of the plaintiff's rights on appeal as the statements in the memorandum, but for our judicial purposes we are not justified in making that assumption.


Summaries of

Shannon v. Mereness

Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, New Haven, January Term, 1915
Mar 26, 1915
93 A. 529 (Conn. 1915)
Case details for

Shannon v. Mereness

Case Details

Full title:HENRY E. SHANNON, ADMINISTRATOR, vs. C. ANTOINETTE FISKE MERENESS

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, New Haven, January Term, 1915

Date published: Mar 26, 1915

Citations

93 A. 529 (Conn. 1915)
93 A. 529

Citing Cases

Hoyt v. Stamford

The trial judge then concluded that the damage to the property of these appellants by virtue of the taking of…

Dime Savings Bank of Hartford v. Bragaw

At the hearing on the motion, the only evidence produced was as to the value of the property and there was no…