2 Conn. App. 686 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1984
This appeal
On or about January 31,1976, a coin collection was allegedly stolen from the home of the plaintiffs. At that
The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability supported by an affidavit which included a thirteen page list of the coins comprising the missing collection. In opposition to this motion, the defendants filed the affidavit of a professional numismatist who asserted that “based upon the extreme rarity of some of the coins listed on the first page, and the contradictory grading of quality, it is my professional opinion that the coin collection listed on page one is partly or wholly fictitious.”
In a summary judgment motion, the parties are entitled to consideration, not only of the facts presented by their affidavits, but of the “inferences which could be reasonably and logically drawn from them” as well. United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Commission, 158 Conn. 364, 381, 260 A.2d 596 (1969). One common definition of “fictitious” includes the synonyms “imaginary” and “fabrication or contrivance.” Webster, Third New International Dictionary. The affidavit provided by the defendants, therefore, furnished a basis for a permissible inference creating doubt as to the very existence of the coin collection. Thus, there was a genuine
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
This appeal, originally filed in the Supreme Court, was transferred to this court. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, § 2 (c).
The total value of the collection was $25,546.20 of which $13,366.25 consisted of coins listed on the page questioned by the defendants’ affiant.