Legal Opinion

Munzenmaier v. Quick

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided February 26, 1948PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover on the defendant’s oral agreement to pay to the plaintiff $500 for certain electrical refrigerating equipment which the plaintiff had installed and had been using on premises occupied by the defendant. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed. As the case is presented to this court, the sole question for determination is whether the defendant has a valid defense under the Statute of Frauds. The statute, General Statutes, § 5983, contains these pertinent provisions: “A contract to sell or a sale of any goods ... of the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Denunzio v. DenunzioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
  2. Smith v. BryanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
  3. Calkins v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1845
  4. Devine v. WarnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
  5. Barrett Manufacturing Co. v. D'AmbrosioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Murfreesboro Bank & Trust Co. v. TravisTennessee Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Ackerman-Beardsley-Bennett, Inc. v. BakerPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1954
  3. Ackerman-Beardsley-Bennett, Inc. v. BakerConnecticut Superior Court · 1954
  4. Taylor v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API