Roles v. Fisher

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Roles v. Fisher

180 A.2d 753, 149 Conn. 733

DecidedApril 17, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.2d 753 (Roles v. Fisher) 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

Roles v. Fisher, 180 A.2d 753, 149 Conn. 733 (Colo. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs sued to recover for services allegedly rendered the defendant as the result of their employment by the defendant’s husband, a Chicago attorney. None of the plaintiffs had been employed directly by the defendant, nor had they had any oral or written communication with her. There was no evidence from which it could be found that the husband had any authority to employ the plaintiffs on account of the defendant or to obligate her to compensate the plaintiffs.

The defendant assigned as error that certain findings were made without supporting evidence. The plaintiffs have not filed, in appendices to their [734]*734briefs, evidence to support the challenged findings. See Cushing v. Salmon, 148 Conn. 631, 632, 173 A.2d 543; Engelke v. Wheatley, 148 Conn. 398, 411, 171 A.2d 402. Consequently those findings must be deleted. Without them, the conclusions of the court are unsupported.

There is error in both cases, the judgments are set aside and the cases are remanded with direction to render judgments for the defendant.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs sued to recover for services allegedly rendered the defendant as the result of their employment by the defendant’s husband, a Chicago attorney. None of the plaintiffs had been employed directly by the defendant, nor had they had any oral or written communication with her. There was no evidence from which it could be found that the husband had any authority to employ the plaintiffs on account of the defendant or to obligate her to compensate the plaintiffs.

The defendant assigned as error that certain findings were made without supporting evidence. The plaintiffs have not filed, in appendices to their [734]*734briefs, evidence to support the challenged findings. See Cushing v. Salmon, 148 Conn. 631, 632, 173 A.2d 543; Engelke v. Wheatley, 148 Conn. 398, 411, 171 A.2d 402. Consequently those findings must be deleted. Without them, the conclusions of the court are unsupported.

There is error in both cases, the judgments are set aside and the cases are remanded with direction to render judgments for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.2d 753, 149 Conn. 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roles-v-fisher-conn-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack