Miller v. Vordenbaum
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtHaines, J.
The only question presented by this appeal relates to the sufficiency of a certain written contract to satisfy our statute of frauds. The complaint sets up that the parties executed this contract for the sale of certain property in New Haven known as No. 257 Winchester Avenue and gives the terms of the contract and recites the claimed breach thereof by the defendants. No fair question can be raised but that the contract states the terms of the sale with sufficient exactness to satisfy the requirements of the statute, except in one particular. A part of the statement of the consideration is as…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Nichols v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1834
- Gendelman v. MongilloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Shelinsky v. FosterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913
- Handy v. BarclaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
- Shoag v. SheftelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Santoro v. MackSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- DeLuca v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
- Town of East Haven v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Didriksen v. HavensSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
- Mitchell v. a & B Coal Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.