Legal Opinion
Santoro v. Mack
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 5, 1929PublishedCited by 66 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHaines, J.
The first count of the amended complaint alleged a written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant Mack, for the sale to the former of certain real estate in Waterbury owned by the latter, the agreement reading as follows:
“Waterbury, Conn., Sept. 24, 1926
“Received from Mr. Leonardo Santoro $100 for a deposit for Mrs. Mack’s property situated at 1017 N. Main St., said property to be free from all encumbrances except first mortgage of $7,500 held by Citizens & Manufacturing Bank and a second mortgage of 2,000 held by Nicolo. Said Mrs. Mack is to receive $2,500 in cash and bal. and…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Grant v. GrantSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- N. E. D. Holding Co. v. McKinleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Gillis v. CobeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Gendelman v. MongilloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Brown v. SuttonSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Breen v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Botticello v. StefanoviczSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Jones v. LinderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1952
- DeLuca v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.