Schulte, Inc. v. Hewitt Grocery Co.

125 A. 365, 101 Conn. 750, 1924 Conn. LEXIS 161
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 30, 1924·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

*751 Per Curiam.

In setting aside a verdict, the trial judge is acting in the exercise of a legal discretion, and his action will not be disturbed by us unless it clearly appears that the discretion was abused; and in passing upon the question of abuse, great weight should be given to his opinion, and every assumption made in favor of its correctness. Robinson v. Backes, 91 Conn. 457, 460, 99 Atl. 1057; Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co., 90 Conn. 18, 96 Atl. 169.

A careful examination of the evidence presented on the trial discloses that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling in substance that the jury could not reasonably have found the issues presented to them by the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff.

There is no error.

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

Schulte, Inc. v. Hewitt Grocery Co., 125 A. 365, 101 Conn. 750, 1924 Conn. LEXIS 161 (Colo. 1924).

125 A. 365 (Schulte, Inc. v. Hewitt Grocery Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DeLahunta v. City of Waterbury
59 A.2d 800 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1948)
Atchison v. Lewis
38 A.2d 673 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1944)
Caldwell v. Danforth
200 A. 577 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1938)
Amellin v. Leone
159 A. 293 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1932)
Orsillo v. Russo
155 A. 862 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1931)
Flynn v. Flynn
136 A. 383 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1927)
Maroncelli v. Starkweather
133 A. 209 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1926)
Schroeder v. City of Hartford
132 A. 901 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1926)
Canfield v. Sheketoff
132 A. 401 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1926)