Legal Opinion

Marchetti v. Sleeper

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 1, 1924PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeach, J.

The demurrer might better have been addressed to the special defense raised by the answer, than to the complaint, for the complaint contains no averment as to character of the plaintiffs’ services, and the defense that an architect’s services are not lienable, could not properly be raised in that way. But since that issue of law is necessarily determined by the judgment, and nobody makes any objection to the form in which it is presented by the appeal, we will decide the point.

Whether an architect’s claim for services rendered in the preparation of plans and specifications and in supervising…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Healy v. FallonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
  2. Tramonte v. WilensSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
  3. Weinstein v. Montowese Brick Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
  4. Booth v. VonberenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. J. J. Henry Co., Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969
  2. Camputaro v. Stuart Hardwood Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  3. Thompson & Peck, Inc. v. Division Drywall, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
  4. Nickel Mine Brook Associates v. SakalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  5. Lewin & Sons, Inc. v. HermanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956

7 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