Russo v. Christian

The plaintiff sued to recover a down payment she made to the defendant on an oral agreement for the purchase of the defendant’s three-family house at 87-89 Blakeman Place, Strat-ford. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.

Basically, the defendant’s assignments of error are three: First, the action is predicated on an oral contract which is unenforceable because of the Statute of Frauds; second, the finding is broadly attacked; and third, the conclusions of the court cannot be supported.

We first consider'the attack on the finding. The entire…