Carroll v. Shetucket Realty Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Carroll v. Shetucket Realty Co.

174 A. 64, 118 Conn. 715, 1934 Conn. LEXIS 113

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJuly 16, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 174 A. 64 (Carroll v. Shetucket Realty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carroll v. Shetucket Realty Co., 174 A. 64, 118 Conn. 715, 1934 Conn. LEXIS 113 (Colo. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff owned certain shares of stock of the defendant The Shetucket Realty Company which he transferred to the defendant George W. Carroll, Jr. The company is in process of liquidation and *716 a considerable sum of money is being held by it to be paid to the owner of the stock in question. The plaintiff brought this action in the nature of an inter-pleader claiming that the beneficial interest in the stock belonged to him. The trial court found that the plaintiff had given it to his son. The testimony was conflicting and the finding has ample support in the evidence of the son. The plaintiff, however, contends that the trial court did not properly weigh the evidence. The testimony of the plaintiff was by a deposition taken in California, whereas the son appeared in person. The trial court in its memorandum of decision commented upon the fact of the plaintiff’s failure to appear as a witness and upon the impression of veracity which the son had made. The weight to be given to the evidence of any particular witness often depends upon the impression he gives of honesty and accuracy and necessarily when a witness testifies by deposition he loses the opportunity of creating a favorable impression of that nature. It is inherent in a situation of sharp conflict in the testimony of the parties to the action, where they are substantially the only witnesses as to the essential issue, as was the situation here, that the party who gives his evidence by deposition is put at a disadvantage. The trial court went no farther in its memorandum than to recognize that fact, except perhaps for a suggestion that, had the plaintiff seen fit to appear, any disadvantage of this nature would have been avoided. We cannot find error in the manner in which the trial court weighed the evidence. 23 C. J. p. 38. So far as the other assignments of error find support in the record they are without merit and there is no need to consider claims first appearing in the briefs of counsel.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff owned certain shares of stock of the defendant The Shetucket Realty Company which he transferred to the defendant George W. Carroll, Jr. The company is in process of liquidation and *716 a considerable sum of money is being held by it to be paid to the owner of the stock in question. The plaintiff brought this action in the nature of an inter-pleader claiming that the beneficial interest in the stock belonged to him. The trial court found that the plaintiff had given it to his son. The testimony was conflicting and the finding has ample support in the evidence of the son. The plaintiff, however, contends that the trial court did not properly weigh the evidence. The testimony of the plaintiff was by a deposition taken in California, whereas the son appeared in person. The trial court in its memorandum of decision commented upon the fact of the plaintiff’s failure to appear as a witness and upon the impression of veracity which the son had made. The weight to be given to the evidence of any particular witness often depends upon the impression he gives of honesty and accuracy and necessarily when a witness testifies by deposition he loses the opportunity of creating a favorable impression of that nature. It is inherent in a situation of sharp conflict in the testimony of the parties to the action, where they are substantially the only witnesses as to the essential issue, as was the situation here, that the party who gives his evidence by deposition is put at a disadvantage. The trial court went no farther in its memorandum than to recognize that fact, except perhaps for a suggestion that, had the plaintiff seen fit to appear, any disadvantage of this nature would have been avoided. We cannot find error in the manner in which the trial court weighed the evidence. 23 C. J. p. 38. So far as the other assignments of error find support in the record they are without merit and there is no need to consider claims first appearing in the briefs of counsel.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A. 64, 118 Conn. 715, 1934 Conn. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-shetucket-realty-co-conn-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack