Kapitzke v. F. Mills Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Kapitzke v. F. Mills Co.

7 Conn. Supp. 46, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 21

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1939

DocketFile No. 55579

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Conn. Supp. 46 (Kapitzke v. F. Mills Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kapitzke v. F. Mills Co., 7 Conn. Supp. 46, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 21 (Colo. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

BOOTH, J.

The action set forth in the complaint is based on the plaintiff’s claimed right of an accounting and a money judgment as incident thereto. These and further allegations in the complaint are evidently designed to set up a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants, and to seek the relief prayed for on the basis of such relationship.

[47]*47Thus is pleaded a cause or causes of action “properly cog' nizable in equity” prior to 1880. Bristol vs. Pitchard, 81 Conn. 451. Under these circumstances a jury trial is a matter of the court’s discretion, which should be exercised to promote the most expeditious disposition of the cause consistent with a legal and just determination of the issues presented.

In the opinion of the court, after a review of the pleadings, this result is more likely to follow from a court trial than by a trial by a jury.

For the foregoing reasons the motion as made is granted and the case is hereby ordered stricken from the jury docket.

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