Corbett v. Halliwell

Second Circuit

Corbett v. Halliwell

123 F.2d 331, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2697

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 10, 1941·No. No. 22·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was tried without a jury. The trial judge made detailed findings of fact and came to the conclusion that not only had the defendant given no express promise of compensation but the conduct of the parties was not such as to justify the plaintiff in understanding that the defendant intended to compensate him or that she availed herself of his services with knowledge that he expected compensation. Consequently judgment was given for the defendant. The appeal raises only the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and judgment. In actions tried upon the facts without a jury, findings of fact made by the court shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. F.R.C.P. Rule 52(a), 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c. It would serve ■ no useful purpose to review the evidence. It is sufficient to say that we have examined the record and are satisfied that the findings are not “clearly erroneous” but are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was tried without a jury. The trial judge made detailed findings of fact and came to the conclusion that not only had the defendant given no express promise of compensation but the conduct of the parties was not such as to justify the plaintiff in understanding that the defendant intended to compensate him or that she availed herself of his services with knowledge that he expected compensation. Consequently judgment was given for the defendant. The appeal raises only the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and judgment. In actions tried upon the facts without a jury, findings of fact made by the court shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. F.R.C.P. Rule 52(a), 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c. It would serve ■ no useful purpose to review the evidence. It is sufficient to say that we have examined the record and are satisfied that the findings are not “clearly erroneous” but are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Corbett v. Halliwell, 123 F.2d 331, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2697 (2d Cir. 1941).

Pincite

123 F.2d 331 (Corbett v. Halliwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related