Legal Opinion · Dissent

Standard Acceptance Corp. v. Connor

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 25, 1940Published

1DissentMaltbie, C. J.

The statement of the year “1938” in the bill of sale was so obviously an inadvertence, of a kind so common when one year is closing and another is beginning, that it seems to me any person with ordinary intelligence would at once appreciate that January 10, 1939, was intended. The majority opinion, I think, savors more of technicality than it does of common sense. Even a court of law in an action between the parties would, I am sure, overlook the error as an obvious one and construe the date as though written “1939.” Tolman v. McLay, 114 Conn. 98, 100, 157 Atl. 647. We have never interpreted…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Beach v. OsborneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
  2. Sturtevant v. WallackMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
  3. State v. BentonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  4. Tolman v. McLay.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
  5. Baltis v. FriendCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1901

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API