Legal Opinion

Mazzotta v. Bornstein

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 29, 1926PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, J.

The plaintiff is seeking the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien filed by him to secure a balance he claims under a contract for the construction of a two-story factory building for the defendants. The trial court, in determining the amount due, refused to include a charge in addition to the contract price, made by the plaintiff by reason of a change in the kind of elevator to be installed; and it made certain deductions on account of damages suffered by the defendants through the plaintiff’s alleged failure fully to perform his contractual obligations. Both parties have appealed, claiming…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Jordan, Marsh & Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
  2. In re Curtis & Castle ArbitrationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1894
  3. C. W. Hunt Co. v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
  4. Richard Deeves & Son v. Manhattan Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
  5. Cohn v. NortonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1889

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Campbell v. RockefellerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
  2. Ruscito v. F-Dyne Electronics Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
  3. Shaughnessy v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  4. W. G. Maltby, Inc. v. Associated Realty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
  5. Hartford Electric Applicators of Thermalux, Inc. v. AldenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API