Girasulo v. Consol. Motor Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1937 |
| Docket Number | 50380,File 50375 |
| Citation | 5 Conn.Supp. 245 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | ANGELO GIRASULO and JOSEPH DE GROTO v. CONSOLIDATED MOTOR LINES, INC. |
FitzGerald Foote & FitzGerald, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
Watrous Hewitt, Gumbart & Corbin; William L. Hadden; Bernard P Kopkind, Attorneys for the Defendants.
Present: Hon. ERNEST A. INGLIS, Judge.
In these actions that were brought for alleged torts, some of the defendants filed cross-complaints that alleged substantially that after the commencement of the trial on the issues, the parties entered into an agreement of compromise wherein it was agreed that the plaintiffs would settle their claims for certain specified amounts; that the defendants relying upon the agreement, permitted the trial to be discontinued to their detriment; that they have submitted releases to the plaintiffs which they have neglected to sign and that they have always been ready to comply with the terms of the agreement. The defendants pray for an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from prosecuting their suits and specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiffs demur to the cross-complaint on various grounds. Law reviewed. Held:
That the agreement to compromise is an accord and satisfaction of an unliquidated claim, and although the agreement is executory, the defendants are entitled to the relief prayed.
The cross-complaints are not defective by reason of their failure to allege tender of payment by the defendants for the following reasons: first, because under the agreement, the payment of the money was to be contemporaneous with the delivery of the releases by the plaintiffs; second, because on the facts alleged, it might well be found that the defendants were justified in concluding that such a tender would have been unavailing; and third, because even without a tender, so long as the defendants did not actually breach their agreement of compromise, that agreement remains effective to suspend the right of the plaintiffs to enforce the tort liability of the defendants and therefore to entitle the defendants to the injunction prayed.
The law as to contracts to accept in the future a stated performance in satisfaction of an existing contractual duty, or a duty to make compensation, exhaustively reviewed.
Demurrers to cross-complaints overruled.
These actions were brought to recover damages for alleged torts. Some of the defendants have filed cross-complaints in which they allege that after the commencement of the trial of the issues on the complaint the parties entered into an agreement of compromise whereby it was agreed that the plaintiffs would settle their claims for certain specified amounts and would give written releases and that the defendants would pay those amounts. It is further alleged that, relying on that agreement the defendants permitted the trial to be discontinued to their detriment, that they submitted releases to be signed by the plaintiffs but that the plaintiffs have neglected to sign them and have neglected to carry out their agreement in connection therewith and that the defendants have always been ready, able and willing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dobias v. White
...Gardner, 190 Ark. 104, 77 S.W.2d 642, 96 A.L.R. 1130; French v. Commercial Credit Co., 99 Colo. 447, 64 P.2d 127; Girasulo v. Consolidated Motor Lines, Inc., 5 Conn.Supp. 245; Cook v. Richardson, 178 Mass. 125, 59 N.E. 675; Hunt v. Brown, 146 Mass. 253, 15 N.E. 587; Burtman v. Butman, 94 N.......
-
Tolland Enterprises v. Scan-Code, Inc.
...(Second), [supra, § 281]; see also Montgomery v. Smith, 40 Conn.Supp. 358, 361, 499 A.2d 444 (1985); Girasulo v. Consolidated Motor Lines, Inc., 5 Conn.Supp. 245, 247-48 (1937)." Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., supra, 225 Conn. at 809, 626 A.2d 729. Al......
- Cozzolino v. Cozzolino