Baker v. Torok

Connecticut Appellate Court

Baker v. Torok

24 Conn. Supp. 389

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedFebruary 26, 1962

DocketFile No. CV 2-612-1973M

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Conn. Supp. 389 (Baker v. Torok) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. Torok, 24 Conn. Supp. 389 (Colo. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Levine, J.

This is an action for a real estate broker’s commission. The defendant filed a general denial. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and from it the defendant appealed. He assigned error in the refusal of the court to find certain facts, in the finding of certain other facts, and in the conclusions of law. In his argument before the Appellate Division, he abandoned his entire assignment of errors and raised for the first time the defense of illegality of the contract, this defense not having been raised in the pleadings nor on the trial of the issues nor in the assignment of errors.

We do not consider claims of error which are not specifically included in the assignment of errors, which are not raised at the trial, and which are not ruled upon and decided by the court adversely to the appellant. Cir. Ct. Rule 7.51.1; Practice Book [390]*390§§ 409, 154; Shakro v. Haddad, 149 Conn. 160, 163; Jeschor v. Guilford, 143 Conn. 152, 156.

There is no error.

In this opinion O’Brien and Matzkin, Js., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Levine, J.

This is an action for a real estate broker’s commission. The defendant filed a general denial. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and from it the defendant appealed. He assigned error in the refusal of the court to find certain facts, in the finding of certain other facts, and in the conclusions of law. In his argument before the Appellate Division, he abandoned his entire assignment of errors and raised for the first time the defense of illegality of the contract, this defense not having been raised in the pleadings nor on the trial of the issues nor in the assignment of errors.

We do not consider claims of error which are not specifically included in the assignment of errors, which are not raised at the trial, and which are not ruled upon and decided by the court adversely to the appellant. Cir. Ct. Rule 7.51.1; Practice Book [390]*390§§ 409, 154; Shakro v. Haddad, 149 Conn. 160, 163; Jeschor v. Guilford, 143 Conn. 152, 156.

There is no error.

In this opinion O’Brien and Matzkin, Js., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Conn. Supp. 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-torok-connappct-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack