Legal Opinion
Hofmann v. Defelice
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided November 29, 1949PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDickenson, J.
In this action the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant on a forbearance contract. ■ The defense was fraudulent misrepresentation in procuring the contract and lack of consideration for it. The trial court rendered judgment for the defend ant on the latter ground. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment, assigning error in the finding and the conclusions thereon.
Between the years of 1925 and 1930, when the defendant was a child, her parents, Dominick and Pauline DeFelice, purchased of the plaintiff household furniture at a price of $1200. The defendant was twenty-one years old…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Markel v. DifrancescoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
- Waters v. WhiteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Dr. Ward's Medical Co. v. WolleatSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Savings Bank of Rockville v. CohnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
3Cited by4 opinions
- Iseli Co. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Rockstone Capital, LLC v. CaldwellConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021
- Davis v. DavisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1963
- Patel v. Keshwala, No. Cv95-0249428s (Apr. 30, 1996)Connecticut Superior Court · 1996