53 Conn. 327 | Conn. | 1885
This case is an action of assumpsit, with the common counts, brought under the old practice. It was brought to the Superior Court in 1872, was continued from term to term until 1878, when it was referred to’ C. C. R. Vinal, Esq., as a committee, who heard the case in February, 1885, and made his report to the court then in session. The defendants remonstrated against the acceptance of the report, but the court overruled the remonstrance, accepted the report, and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed to this court.
The reasons of appeal are substantially those set up in the remonstrance, and though put in a variety of forms, may be stated briefly as follows
1. That the committee had no authority to act.
2. That the committee erred in refusing the defendants’ request for an adjournment.
3. That the committee erred in receiving evidence.
As to the first point. The finding is that the committee, after the first appointment in 1878, which it is admitted was in all respects a legal one, “ was not subsequently reappointed, and no entry was made on the written docket oí the court after that term showing that he had been reappointed, but his name was regularly entered as committee in the printed term dockets of each succeeding term.”
The printed term docket of which every lawyer practicing in that court had a copy, gave notice to all parties interested of the fact that Mr. Vinal was a committee in the case and was all the information needed by either party to enable him to take measures for having the ease heard by the committee. But without relying on this docket as
It is claimed on the part of the defendants that this rule implies that unless the clerk makes the entry of re-appointment in his docket there is no proof of re-appointment and consequently no re-appointment, the rule authorizing the clerk to enter such re-appointment on his docket without action on the part of the court, but not dispensing with such entry by the clerk. But the case is one of a reappointment made by the law, and simply of a failure of the clerk to enter up the re-appointment. But such a clerical omission can always be corrected, and the clerk would have the right to-day to suppty the needed record. There is nothing in this reason of appeal.
As to the second reason. It is a well settled rule that all questions of adjournment, or of the continuance of a case, where there is no provision of statute determining the matter, are questions for the discretion of the court and
As to the third reason. It appears that the claim of the plaintiffs did not depend on the accuracy of the entries on their account book, regarded as original entries. They presented their claim in a bill of particulars, and the witness was asked whether that was a correct statement and whether the goods therein mentioned were actually delivered. There can be no objection to this evidence.
In regard to the evidence claimed by the defendants, that a receipt was given for payment made for some of the articles mentioned in the bill of particulars, the court finds expressly that it did not appear that the receipt was for the same articles.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.