General
Joseph S. Firszt vs. Joseph Kalinowski, Conservator
109 Conn. 732·Connecticut Supreme Court·1929·CT
Wheeler; C. J., Mai/ebie, Haines, Hinman and Banks, Js.
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
Joseph S. Firszt vs. Joseph Kalinowski, Conservator.
First Judicial District, Hartford,
January Term, 1929.
Wheeler; C. J., Mai/ebie, Haines, Hinman and Banks, Js.
Argued January 4th
decided March 2d, 1929.
James J. O’Connor, for the appellant (defendant).
Julius Apter and Milton Nahum, for the appellee (plaintiff).
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The appeal is brought under General Statutes, § 5840, from the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict. The failure of the appellant to make the evidence a part of the record prevents our passing upon the-claimed error of the court in denying the appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict. Kirkbride v. Bartz, 82 Conn. 615, 74 Atl. 888. The other grounds of appeal, alleged errors in the charge, in the ruling on evidence, and for mispleading, cannot be considered under this appeal, by which the single question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is before us. Errors such as these could only be considered upon a finding and when made a part of an additional appeal. White v. Howd, 66 Conn. 264, 33 Atl. 915; McCaffrey v. Groton & Stonington Street Ry. Co., 85 Conn. 584, 594, 84 Atl. 284.
There is no error.