Murray v. Fairchild and Shelton Company

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Murray v. Fairchild and Shelton Company

131 A. 392, 103 Conn. 758

DecidedDecember 5, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A. 392 (Murray v. Fairchild and Shelton Company) 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

Murray v. Fairchild and Shelton Company, 131 A. 392, 103 Conn. 758 (Colo. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant admitted that there was still due the plaintiff under this contract $78.78, but denied that anything further was due. For the purpose of having the finding show that nothing further was due, defendant appeals from the refusal of the trial court to find facts from which it must follow that the plaintiff had been paid his commissions exclusive of the $78.78. We have examined the excerpts from the evidence attached to the motion to correct and find that the refusal of the trial court to find the facts requested is not erroneous, since the evidence upon this matter was conflicting.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant admitted that there was still due the plaintiff under this contract $78.78, but denied that anything further was due. For the purpose of having the finding show that nothing further was due, defendant appeals from the refusal of the trial court to find facts from which it must follow that the plaintiff had been paid his commissions exclusive of the $78.78. We have examined the excerpts from the evidence attached to the motion to correct and find that the refusal of the trial court to find the facts requested is not erroneous, since the evidence upon this matter was conflicting.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A. 392, 103 Conn. 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-fairchild-and-shelton-company-conn-1925.