Hungerford v. Hicks
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield county, and tried on the general issue closed to the court, before Foster, J. The declaration contained ■ the common counts, and a special count upon tbe following agreement of tbe defendant: “ Winsted, Conn., Dec.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield county, and tried on the general issue closed to the court, before Foster, J. The declaration contained ■ the common counts, and a special count upon tbe following agreement of tbe defendant: “ Winsted, Conn., Dec. Bd, 1869. Whereas D. L. Hunger-ford has proposed to find some person or persons who will purchase my hotel, called the Clark House, in Winsted, Ct.— Now I do hereby agree that if lie shall find or send any person or persons who will purchase said property at any terms to which I may assent and I shall thereupon make the sale to…
1Opinion of the CourtPaek, J.
The finding of the court excludes all ground for claiming that the plaintiff had any thing to do with the sale of the premises in question to the Messrs. Stevens. The property was sold to them by the defendant, and they bargained to *264sell the same to Botsford & Forester, and when the deed was given, it was arranged by all the parties that the land should be conveyed directly by the defendant to Botsford & Forester, which was done. It is common for one pez’son to purchase real estate and direct the deed to be given to a third party to whom he has since sold the property, in order to save the…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Wylie v. . Marine National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Armstrong v. WannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Babcock v. MerrittColorado Court of Appeals · 1891
- BABCOCK v. MERRITTColorado Court of Appeals · 1891
- Ritch v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.