Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1959

Gitlitz v. Davis

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided March 31, 1959 · Daly, Baldwin, King, Murphy, Mellitz

146 Conn. 280; 150 A.2d 213; 1959 Conn. LEXIS 155

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Lomas & Nettleton Co. v. Cadoux (Conn. 1972)
Farrell v. Spangle (Conn. 1964)
St. John v. Commissioner of Transportation (Conn. 1977)
Martin v. Connecticut Personnel Commissioner (Conn. 1974)
Pelc v. City of Danbury (Conn. 1974)
Davenport Taxi, Inc. v. State Labor Commissioner (Conn. 1973)
Robertson v. Robertson (Conn. 1972)
City Savings Bank v. Lawler (Conn. 1972)
Automobile Insurance v. Conlon (Conn. 1966)
Hartford Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Lenczyk (Conn. 1966)
Charlton Press, Inc. v. Sullivan (Conn. 1965)
Wagner v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Conn. 1965)
Leonard v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Conn. 1964)
Tuite v. Tuite (Conn. 1963)
Burma Development Corp. v. Sanford (Conn. 1962)
Czelzewicz v. Turansky (Conn. App. Ct. 1969)
Markiw v. Fitzgerald (Conn. App. Ct. 1968)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*281 Murphy, J.

The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court denying him the right to use the title “architect.” In his complaint seeking a declaratory judgment, he alleged that the defendant members of the architectural examining board had issued to him a certificate which permitted him to continue to engage in the making of plans and specifications or supervising the construction of buildings. This was admitted in the answer, but all other material allegations of the complaint were denied.

The plaintiff did not file a request for a finding by the trial court to properly present the issues upon appeal for determination by this court. A finding is necessary where error is claimed in conclusions as to law and facts which do not appear upon the face of the record. Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc., § 126. As no finding was requested, none was made. We are, therefore, limited in our inquiry to such facts as appear upon the record and were put in issue upon the pleadings. Mendrochowicz v. Wolfe, 139 Conn. 506, 509, 95 A.2d 260. The only facts in the record in this case are those which appear from the complaint, the answer and the judgment. A memorandum of decision establishes no facts; Putterman v. Miller, 133 Conn. 70, 73, 48 A.2d 235; nor can it take the place of a finding. Goldblatt v. Ferrigno, 138 Conn. 39, 40, 82 A.2d 152.

In his assignment of errors, the plaintiff claims that the facts stated in the judgment do not support it. The only facts stated in the judgment are that the parties appeared and were at issue and that the plaintiff had not qualified under the applicable provision of the statutes (now Rev. 1958, § 20-290) to use the title “architect.” The judgment recites the court’s conclusions that the issues are found for the *282 defendants and that the plaintiff is not entitled to use the title. Without the subordinate facts upon which the court based its conclusions, we are in no position to do other than affirm the judgment.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.