Wixner v. Wixner

223 A.2d 807, 154 Conn. 703
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedNovember 2, 1966
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 223 A.2d 807 (Wixner v. Wixner) 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
Wixner v. Wixner, 223 A.2d 807, 154 Conn. 703 (Colo. 1966).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant husband has appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court which awarded the plaintiff wife a divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty. General Statutes § 46-13.

The case had been referred to a state referee, who, after a hearing, submitted a report and, at the parties’ request, a finding of subordinate facts. The referee concluded that the defendant’s conduct toward the plaintiff constituted intolerable cruelty. On the plaintiff’s motion, after a hearing on the [704]*704defendant’s exceptions to the report, the court accepted the report and granted the divorce.

When the defendant filed his appeal, he requested the court to make a finding. A finding by the court was inappropriate. Dion v. Dion, 128 Conn. 416, 417, 23 A.2d 314. We have repeatedly pointed out that in cases where the court hears no evidence it should not make a finding. See, e.g., Wilusz v. Ives, 152 Conn. 352, 354, 206 A.2d 841; Gulf Oil Corporation v. Board of Selectmen, 144 Conn. 61, 64, 127 A.2d 48. In the present case, the court erroneously complied with the defendant’s request and made an extensive “finding,” apparently based on a reading of the transcript of the evidence taken at the referee’s hearing. The errors which the defendant assigns are directed to matters contained in the inappropriate and improper finding. The errors which are assigned in no way challenge the court’s exercise of its function under Practice Book § 363, and therefore no issues are properly presented to us.

There is no error.

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

Related

One Sylvan Rd. v. Lark Int'l Ltd., No. Cv94 031 05 85 S (Dec. 31, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12783 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Jacobs v. Healey Ford-Subaru, Inc.
652 A.2d 496 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1995)
White Oak Corp. v. Department of Transportation
585 A.2d 1199 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1991)
Boris Churyk Water Well Drilling Co. v. Genovese
368 A.2d 1184 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1976)
Boris Churyk Water Well Drilling v. Genovese
368 A.2d 1184 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1976)
Consiglio v. Ahern
251 A.2d 92 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 A.2d 807, 154 Conn. 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wixner-v-wixner-conn-1966.