Buell v. Cook
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit for the rent of the county-house in Litchfield, from the 1st of December, 1817, to the 10th of April, 1818. The declaration contained two counts; the first was on a special agreement; the second was general, for use and occupation.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit for the rent of the county-house in Litchfield, from the 1st of December, 1817, to the 10th of April, 1818. The declaration contained two counts; the first was on a special agreement; the second was general, for use and occupation. The cause was tried, on the general issue, at Litchfield, February term, 1822, before Chapman, J. The plaintiff, to support the issue on his part, offered in evidence the following contract, having first proved the execution of it: “It is hereby agreed, by and between Jonathan Buell and Roger Cook, that said Buell will let to said…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
In this case, I am of opinion, that the court erred, in the admission of the writing exhibited in evidence by the plaintiff; and in the rejection of the testimony, offered by the defendant.
1. The writing was not a lease, but merely an agreement to lease, on a precedent condition, which never took effect.
Whether it was a lease, or an agreement to lease, must depend on the intention of the parties, as it is to be collected from the whole of the written instrument. 1 Bac. Abr. 160, 1. Goodtitle v. Way, 1 Term Rep. 735. Roe v. Ashburner, 5 Term Rep. 163. The words, although a part…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Atwood v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1904
- Williams v. NelsonUtah Supreme Court · 1925
- Boston, Concord & Montreal Railroad v. Boston & Lowell RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1888