Wood v. Kenney

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Wood v. Kenney

132 A. 451, 104 Conn. 738, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 152

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMarch 4, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 A. 451 (Wood v. Kenney) 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

Wood v. Kenney, 132 A. 451, 104 Conn. 738, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 152 (Colo. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The error assigned in failing to correct the finding in accordance with exceptions one and two cannot be considered, since the appellant has not com *739 plied with the requirements of our procedure. See General Statutes, §§ 5830, 5831; Rules of Supreme Court of Errors, § 11 (Practice Book, p. 309).

The fourth error assigned in denying the plaintiff’s motion in arrest is based upon the claimed misconduct of a juror. The finding of facts discloses that there was no misconduct of the juror, that the claimed misconduct was too trivial for consideration, that the act alleged was not occasioned by the prevailing party or anyone in his behalf, and that it did not unfavorably prejudice the appellant. State v. Rubuka, 82 Conn. 59, 61, 72 Atl. 566; Pettibone v. Phelps, 13 Conn. 444; Wood v. Holah, 80 Conn. 314, 316, 68 Atl. 323. Under such circumstances the trial court could not have legally sustained the motion in arrest.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The error assigned in failing to correct the finding in accordance with exceptions one and two cannot be considered, since the appellant has not com *739 plied with the requirements of our procedure. See General Statutes, §§ 5830, 5831; Rules of Supreme Court of Errors, § 11 (Practice Book, p. 309).

The fourth error assigned in denying the plaintiff’s motion in arrest is based upon the claimed misconduct of a juror. The finding of facts discloses that there was no misconduct of the juror, that the claimed misconduct was too trivial for consideration, that the act alleged was not occasioned by the prevailing party or anyone in his behalf, and that it did not unfavorably prejudice the appellant. State v. Rubuka, 82 Conn. 59, 61, 72 Atl. 566; Pettibone v. Phelps, 13 Conn. 444; Wood v. Holah, 80 Conn. 314, 316, 68 Atl. 323. Under such circumstances the trial court could not have legally sustained the motion in arrest.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A. 451, 104 Conn. 738, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-kenney-conn-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack