Legal Opinion
Lach v. Cahill
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided December 18, 1951PublishedCited by 85 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
The plaintiff sues to recover a deposit he made with one of the defendants upon a written agreement to purchase a house belonging to the other. The trial court concluded that the agreement never came into existence because it was subject to a condition which had not been fulfilled. It rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the return of the deposit and the defendants appealed.
The finding, which is not subject to correction, discloses the following facts: On November 10, 1949, the plaintiff signed an agreement with the defendant Cahill, acting through his agent, the defendant Rabbett, to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McFarland v. SikesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1886
- Leventhal v. Town of StratfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- New Haven Sand Blast Co. v. DreisbachSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Fischer v. KennedySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- McIsaac v. HaleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by85 opinions
- Canaras v. Lift Truck Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
- Twin Fires Investment, LLC v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005
- Brauer v. FrecciaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Stabile v. McCarthyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
- Sicaras v. City of HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
80 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.