McKnight v. Gizze
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtHaines, J.
There is no important dispute as to the following facts: The plaintiffs are practicing attorneys at Waterbury, but not partners. The defendant Gizze was born in Italy, is “well along in years,” entirely uneducated and unable to read or write in either Italian or English, and he can speak but few words of the latter. In June, 1925, he owned both real and personal property, the former being in or near Waterbury, and the latter consisting of $600 on deposit and a mortgage on the property of a third party for $1,400. He considered the net valúe 'Of his property to be $20,000. On June 8th, 1925,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- City National Bank v. StoeckelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Hart v. ChalkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1840
- Morrison v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
- Ross v. PaysonIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Mills v. MillsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Dunham v. DunhamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Dart & Bogue Co. v. SlosbergSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- McCarthy v. SantangeloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Baker v. OttoCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1941
- Cook v. HollydayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1946
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.