Neville v. Frary
Joseph P. Neville v. John Frary.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
The only error complained of arises out of the inclusion of an item of $6 in a judgment for nearly $1,000. If it were so that this item was erroneously allowed, that fact would not warrant either the setting aside of the judgment, or, if it so be that a new trial could be avoided by a direction for the correction in judgment, such intervention by this court. The item is too insignificant to claim our attention, and we give it no other attention than to note its insignificance.
De minimis non curat lex is a familiar maxim, frequently applied by us, expressive óf a principle not to be ignored by parties in the taking of appeals, or by us upon the *51 appeal, if ignored by them.
Old Saybrook v. Milford, 76 Conn. 152, 157 , 56 Atl. 496 ;
Chany v. Hotchkiss, 79 Conn. 104, 108 , 63 Atl. 947 ;
Mathews v. Livingston, 86 Conn. 263, 272 , 85 Atl. 529 .
There is no error.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.