Rosenberg v. Burlingame

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Rosenberg v. Burlingame

181 A. 394, 120 Conn. 695, 1935 Conn. LEXIS 95

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedNovember 5, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 A. 394 (Rosenberg v. Burlingame) 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

Rosenberg v. Burlingame, 181 A. 394, 120 Conn. 695, 1935 Conn. LEXIS 95 (Colo. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs sued to recover a balance claimed to be due upon an automobile purchased by the defendant from them and sums claimed to be due for supplies and services furnished in connection with it. The defendant pleaded full payment. The only question presented is whether or not the trial court erred in finding this defense proven. No substantial corrections can be made in the finding and it is sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the trial court.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs sued to recover a balance claimed to be due upon an automobile purchased by the defendant from them and sums claimed to be due for supplies and services furnished in connection with it. The defendant pleaded full payment. The only question presented is whether or not the trial court erred in finding this defense proven. No substantial corrections can be made in the finding and it is sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the trial court.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A. 394, 120 Conn. 695, 1935 Conn. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-burlingame-conn-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack