Legal Opinion
Fischer v. Kennedy
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 25, 1927PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.
The trial court was right in holding that specific performance cannot be decreed. Malkan v. Hemming, 82 Conn. 293, 73 Atl. 752, The court was also right in holding, upon the facts found, that the original contract was continued by the mutual consent of the parties. Both parties, it appears, treated the contract as continuing in force, waived the sixty-day contract limit for the completion of the contract, from time to time discussed terms and conditions with a view to carrying out the contract, and the plaintiff, with the knowledge and consent of the defendants, with a view to completing the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Grant v. GrantSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- Dix v. MarcyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Ensign v. BattersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
- Wainwright v. TalcottSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
- Malkan v. HemmingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Gagne v. VaccaroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Lach v. CahillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Santoro v. MackSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Cecio Bros. v. Town of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Kearns v. AndreeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.