Steinmetz v. Steinmetz

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Steinmetz v. Steinmetz

7 A.2d 918, 125 Conn. 735

DecidedJune 8, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.2d 918 (Steinmetz v. Steinmetz) 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

Steinmetz v. Steinmetz, 7 A.2d 918, 125 Conn. 735 (Colo. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Most of the facts material to the general situation involved in the present case are stated in the opinion in Clara K. Steinmetz, Executrix, v. Harry G. Steinmetz, ante, 663. In addition to a withdrawal of $60 per week each by the plaintiff and Frederick W. Steinmetz as provided by the partnership agreement between them, each drew further amounts from time to time and paid personal bills and purchased articles for his personal use from the partnership funds. The plaintiff’s claim was based upon items alleged to have been so withdrawn or paid out by the defendant’s decedent. The case was referred to a committee, who found an excess of $3386.77 in withdrawals of Frederick over those of Harry and a consequent indebtedness of the former to the latter of one-half that amount — $1693.38. The defendant filed a remonstrance as to various items so allowed, the report was corrected by stipulation as to certain of them, *736 making the amount due the plaintiff $1393.93, and, as so corrected, was accepted by the trial court and judgment was rendered accordingly. Error is assigned in the failure to eliminate from the report six other items aggregating $403 which were allowed against the defendant. However, the testimony of the plaintiff, with such slight assistance as is afforded by documentary evidence, was sufficient, especially in the absence of contradiction or explanation on behalf of the defendant, to justify the committee in including these items and to preclude a holding of error on the part of the trial court in not regarding them as lacking support from evidence.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

Most of the facts material to the general situation involved in the present case are stated in the opinion in Clara K. Steinmetz, Executrix, v. Harry G. Steinmetz, ante, 663. In addition to a withdrawal of $60 per week each by the plaintiff and Frederick W. Steinmetz as provided by the partnership agreement between them, each drew further amounts from time to time and paid personal bills and purchased articles for his personal use from the partnership funds. The plaintiff’s claim was based upon items alleged to have been so withdrawn or paid out by the defendant’s decedent. The case was referred to a committee, who found an excess of $3386.77 in withdrawals of Frederick over those of Harry and a consequent indebtedness of the former to the latter of one-half that amount — $1693.38. The defendant filed a remonstrance as to various items so allowed, the report was corrected by stipulation as to certain of them, *736 making the amount due the plaintiff $1393.93, and, as so corrected, was accepted by the trial court and judgment was rendered accordingly. Error is assigned in the failure to eliminate from the report six other items aggregating $403 which were allowed against the defendant. However, the testimony of the plaintiff, with such slight assistance as is afforded by documentary evidence, was sufficient, especially in the absence of contradiction or explanation on behalf of the defendant, to justify the committee in including these items and to preclude a holding of error on the part of the trial court in not regarding them as lacking support from evidence.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.2d 918, 125 Conn. 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinmetz-v-steinmetz-conn-1939.