General

ROYAL N. HARRISON, ET ALS. vs. FREDERICK W. GRISWOLD

3 Conn. Supp. 50·Connecticut Superior Court·1935·CT

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

ROYAL N. HARRISON, ET ALS. vs. FREDERICK W. GRISWOLD Superior Court New Haven County File #32600 Present: Hon. EDWIN C. DICKENSON, Judge. Goldstein & Bracken, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. M. J. Quinn, Attorney for the Defendant. MEMORANDUM FILED OCTOBER 6, 1935. [MAJORITY — DICKENSON, J.] DICKENSON, J. The action is one of fraud and the only question involved, apparently, is whether the judgment will support a body execution in view of the fact it was entered by stipulation. It was said in Shaw vs. Spelke, 110 Conn., 208, at 215, “a judgment by consent is in effect an admission by the parties that the decree is a just determination of their rights on the real facts of the case had they been found. It is ordinarily absolutely conclusive between the parties and cannot be appealed from or reviewed on a writ of error.” The stipulation is not one for the payment of money but that the issues be found for the plaintiffs and their damages fixed by judgment. The motion is granted.