Schindler v. Muhlheiser
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit on a note executed by the defendant to the plaintiff; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County. Facts found and case reserved for advice. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
Prior to December 21st, 1874, the plaintiff and one Gilch were the owners, as tenants in common, of certain real estate, subject to a mortgage. The plaintiff not being able to make a satisfactory arrangement with Gilch, agreed by parol with the defendant that his interest in the land should be deeded to the defendant, that the defendant should execute and deliver to the plaintiff his note for one thousand dollars, that thereupon the defendant should negotiate with Gilch as owner, and that afterwards the land should be re-conveyed to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff should deliver up to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Downer v. ChesebroughSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869
- Brush v. ScribnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
- Case v. SpauldingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1856
- Daggett v. WhitingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1868
- Dale v. GearSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1872
3Cited by12 opinions
- McFarland v. SikesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1886
- State Bank of Moore v. ForsythMontana Supreme Court · 1910
- Storey v. StoreyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1914
- Law v. CampDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2000
- O'Brien v. Paterson Brewing & Malting Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1905
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.