Kronfeld v. Missal.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action to recover damages for false and fraudulent representations, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Case, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $280, and appeal by the defendant. No error.
1Opinion of the CourtRoraback, J.
It appears from the undisputed facts that on December 9th, 1911, the defendant, Missal, was the owner of a stock of dry goods, and the business connected therewith, in the city of Hartford. Missal also owned the building in which the goods were located and the business conducted therein. At this time he made a written agreement with the plaintiff, which provided for a sale of the goods in the store, with the fixtures and good will. This written agreement, which was never recorded, also contained a provision for a lease of the store building to the plaintiff, on certain terms, for the period…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sallies v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1911
- Morford v. PeckSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1878
- Shaw v. PopeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1907
- Quinebaug Bank v. BrewsterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1862
3Cited by7 opinions
- Horowitz v. F. E. Spencer Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1945
- Franchey v. HannesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1965
- McDermott v. McDermottSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Egan v. Hudson Nut Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
- Dent v. AdkissonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.