Firszt v. Kalinowski

144 A. 894, 109 Conn. 732
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided March 5, 1929·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appeal is brought under General Statutes, § 5840, from the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict. The failure of the appellant to make the evidence a part of the record prevents our passing upon the-claimed error of the court in denying the appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict. Kirkbride v. Bartz, 82 Conn. 615, 74 Atl. 888. The other grounds of appeal, alleged errors in the charge, in the ruling on evidence, and for mispleading, cannot be considered under this appeal, by which the single question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is before us. Errors such as these could only be considered upon a finding and when made a part of an additional appeal. White v. Howd, 66 Conn. 264, 33 Atl. 915; McCaffrey v. Groton & Stonington Street Ry. Co., 85 Conn. 584, 594, 84 Atl. 284.

There is no error.

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

Firszt v. Kalinowski, 144 A. 894, 109 Conn. 732 (Colo. 1929).

144 A. 894 (Firszt v. Kalinowski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Housing Authority
127 A.2d 45 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1956)
State v. Weinrib
99 A.2d 145 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1953)
State v. Boucher
177 A. 383 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1935)