Neville v. Frary

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Neville v. Frary

89 A. 882, 88 Conn. 50, 1914 Conn. LEXIS 8

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMarch 5, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 A. 882 (Neville v. Frary) 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

Neville v. Frary, 89 A. 882, 88 Conn. 50, 1914 Conn. LEXIS 8 (Colo. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only error complained of arises out of the inclusion of an item of $6 in a judgment for nearly $1,000. If it were so that this item was erroneously allowed, that fact would not warrant either the setting aside of the judgment, or, if it so be that a new trial could be avoided by a direction for the correction in judgment, such intervention by this court. The item is too insignificant to claim our attention, and we give it no other attention than to note its insignificance. De minimis non curat lex is a familiar maxim, frequently applied by us, expressive óf a principle not to be ignored by parties in the taking of appeals, or by us upon the *51 appeal, if ignored by them. Old Saybrook v. Milford, 76 Conn. 152, 157, 56 Atl. 496; Chany v. Hotchkiss, 79 Conn. 104, 108, 63 Atl. 947; Mathews v. Livingston, 86 Conn. 263, 272, 85 Atl. 529.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The only error complained of arises out of the inclusion of an item of $6 in a judgment for nearly $1,000. If it were so that this item was erroneously allowed, that fact would not warrant either the setting aside of the judgment, or, if it so be that a new trial could be avoided by a direction for the correction in judgment, such intervention by this court. The item is too insignificant to claim our attention, and we give it no other attention than to note its insignificance. De minimis non curat lex is a familiar maxim, frequently applied by us, expressive óf a principle not to be ignored by parties in the taking of appeals, or by us upon the *51 appeal, if ignored by them. Old Saybrook v. Milford, 76 Conn. 152, 157, 56 Atl. 496; Chany v. Hotchkiss, 79 Conn. 104, 108, 63 Atl. 947; Mathews v. Livingston, 86 Conn. 263, 272, 85 Atl. 529.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A. 882, 88 Conn. 50, 1914 Conn. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neville-v-frary-conn-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack