Zullo v. Zullo

89 A.2d 218, 138 Conn. 717, 1952 Conn. LEXIS 148
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided May 6, 1952·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Jennings, J.

The parties to this petition for a new trial are the same as those named in the preceding case. After the rendition of the verdict against him as related therein, the plaintiff herein brought this petition for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence and the perpetration of a fraud upon the court. The petition was denied. The decision was correct on at least two sufficient grounds. The evidence was not newly discovered. The exhibit in which it is summarized shows that each item was within the knowledge of the plaintiff herein at the time of the trial of the former case. General Statutes § 8013. In addition, the trial court in the case at bar found that the plaintiff herein was not a credible witness as to the facts thus sought to be introduced. Furthermore, [718]*718since the plaintiff concedes participating in what he claims was a fraud on the court, he is not entitled to raise the question. “JWJhat a person has consented to, he cannot set up as an injury.” Dennis v. Dennis, 68 Conn. 186, 194, 36 A. 34.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Zullo v. Zullo, 89 A.2d 218, 138 Conn. 717, 1952 Conn. LEXIS 148 (Colo. 1952).

89 A.2d 218 (Zullo v. Zullo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morant v. State, No. Cv 97-039876-S (Jul. 26, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 9642 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Malaspina v. Itts
223 A.2d 54 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1966)
Wojculewicz v. State
117 A.2d 439 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1955)
Taylor v. Corkey
111 A.2d 925 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1955)