Pentino v. Tedesco

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Pentino v. Tedesco

134 A. 914, 104 Conn. 747, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 160

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJuly 30, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A. 914 (Pentino v. Tedesco) 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

Pentino v. Tedesco, 134 A. 914, 104 Conn. 747, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 160 (Colo. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Reasons of appeal based upon exceptions to the finding are not well taken. The only other reason of appeal requiring consideration is the overruling of defendants’ claim of law four, “that the plaintiff did not procure a customer who was ready, willing and able to buy the defendants’ said property.” Assuming that this reason of appeal is intended to claim that the subordinate facts do not support this conclusion, we are of opinion that the finding as amended does not support this conclusion.

There is error and a new trial is ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

Reasons of appeal based upon exceptions to the finding are not well taken. The only other reason of appeal requiring consideration is the overruling of defendants’ claim of law four, “that the plaintiff did not procure a customer who was ready, willing and able to buy the defendants’ said property.” Assuming that this reason of appeal is intended to claim that the subordinate facts do not support this conclusion, we are of opinion that the finding as amended does not support this conclusion.

There is error and a new trial is ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A. 914, 104 Conn. 747, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pentino-v-tedesco-conn-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack