midpage

Pentino v. TedescoPentino v. Tedesco

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jul 30, 1926
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Wiiehler
Per Curiam.

Reasons of appeal based upon exceptions to the finding ‍​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍are not well taken. The only other reason of appeal requiring consideration is the overruling of defendants’ claim ‍​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍of law four, “that the plaintiff did not procure a customer who was ready, willing and able to ‍​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍buy the defendants’ said property.” Assuming that this reason of appeal is intended to claim that the subordinate ‍​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍facts do not support this conclusion, we are of opinion that the finding as amended does not support ‍​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍this conclusion.

There is error and a new trial is ordered.

Case Details

Case Name: Pentino v. Tedesco
Court Name: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Date Published: Jul 30, 1926
Citations: 104 Conn. 747; 134 A. 914; 1926 Conn. LEXIS 160
Court Abbreviation: Conn.
Log In