Atwood v. Jarrett

Dwight M. Atwood v. William P. Jarrett.

Atwood v. Jarrett, 71 A. 569 (Conn. 1909)

Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut · State Highest Courts
Decided: January 7, 1909
Judges: Baldwin, Hall, Prentice, Thayer, Roraback
Citations: 71 A. 56981 Conn. 5321909 Conn. LEXIS 114
Disposition: No error.

Cited by 6 3 descriptions by later courts

Headnotes

What constitutes duress is a matter of law. Whether or not duress entered into a particular transaction is a question of fact. A finding of an ultimate fact without any statement of the subordinate or evidential facts, or of the legal principles applied in reaching the conclusion, affords no material for an inquiry by this court into the propriety of the trial court’s action in this particular. An assignment of error respecting a matter of which no mention is made in the record does not properly present any question for the consideration of this court.

Summary

Action to recover the amount of certain promissory notes and the daily penalties agreed upon in case of their nonpayment, brought to the District Court of Waterbury and transferred, upon motion of the defendant, to the Superior Court in New Haven County, where the cause was tried to the court, Shumway, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for .$2,342, and appeal by the defendant.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Prentice

Prentice, J.

There are only three assignments of error. The first two complain of the action of the court in not holding, as the answer set up, that there was such duress practiced by the plaintiff upon the defendant that the agreements sued upon would not be enforced. What constitutes duress is a matter of law; whether or not it enters into a particular transaction is a question of fact.

Galusha v. Sherman, 105 Wis. 263 , 81 N. W. 495 . The court has found that the plaintiff practiced no duress. The record contains no finding of the subordinate facts and no statement of the legal principles applied in reaching its conclusion. We are therefore left without material for an inquiry into the propriety of the court’s action in this regard.

The record nowhere, either in the pleadings, finding, or elsewhere, discloses that the claim embodied in the remaining assignment of error was either presented to or passed upon by the court below. It is therefore not properly before us for consideration.

Sperry v. Butler, 75 Conn. 369, 371 , 53 Atl. 899 ; General Statutes, §802.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

("[t]he record nowhere ... discloses that the claim embodied in the remaining assignment of error was ... passed upon by the court below [and] therefore [it is] not properly before us for consideration")

R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 156 A.3d 539 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017)

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.156 A.3d 539 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017)
Swist v. Swist140 A. 820 (Conn. 1928)
Beach v. First National Bank138 A. 905 (Conn. 1927)
In re Emerald C.949 A.2d 1266 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)
State v. Guillet215 A.2d 685 (Conn. App. Ct. 1965)
Bauco v. Dominello, No. Cv 92 0333175s (May 18, 1995)1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 5645 (1995)

Most recent

R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.156 A.3d 539 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017)
In re Emerald C.949 A.2d 1266 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)
Bauco v. Dominello, No. Cv 92 0333175s (May 18, 1995)1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 5645 (1995)
State v. Guillet215 A.2d 685 (Conn. App. Ct. 1965)
Swist v. Swist140 A. 820 (Conn. 1928)
Beach v. First National Bank138 A. 905 (Conn. 1927)

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.

Authorities cited 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Galusha v. Sherman, 47 L.R.A. 417 (Wis. 1900)	71
	Sperry v. Butler, 53 A. 899 (Conn. 1903)	12

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list