Supreme Court of Connecticut May 29, 1926 (Arute v. Basso)
Also known as
United States · · · 29-05-1926
Per Curiam.
Paragraph third of the motion to .correct, that “defendant was not told who was to endorse the note for five hundred dollars,” should have been granted; other paragraphs of the motion were properly disallowed. If the motion to correct had been allowed in its entirety, the subordinate facts would still have supported the conclusions reached by the trial court, and the judgment.
Read the full text
This document is published by courtlistener.com.
Moonlit adds the citation network, article-level links and cross-references, which are available to search for free.
Sign in to Moonlit