History
  • No items yet
midpage
Murray v. Fairchild and Shelton Company
103 Conn. 758
| Conn. | 1925
|
Check Treatment

The defendant admitted that there was still due the plaintiff under this contract $78.78, but denied that anything further was due. For the purpose of having the finding show that nothing further was due, defendant appeals from the refusal of the trial court to find facts from which it must follow that the plaintiff had been paid his commissions exclusive of the $78.78. We have examined the excerpts from the evidence attached to the motion to correct and find that the refusal of the trial court to find the facts requested is not erroneous, since the evidence upon this matter was conflicting.

There is no error.

Case Details

Case Name: Murray v. Fairchild and Shelton Company
Court Name: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Date Published: Dec 5, 1925
Citation: 103 Conn. 758
Court Abbreviation: Conn.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.