Janulewycz v. Quagliano
| Decision Date | 05 March 1914 |
| Citation | 88 Conn. 60,89 A. 897 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | JANULEWYCZ v. QUAGLIANO. |
Appeal from City Court of Hartford; Herbert S. Bullard, Judge.
Action by Joseph Janulewycz against John Quagliano to recover money paid on a special contract for the purchase of real property. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
On January 4, 1912, the defendant by a written contract with the plaintiff agreed to sell him a tract of land, with the buildings thereon, in the city of Hartford. The defendant at this time received $300 of the purchase price of this property in pursuance of the terms of the written contract. It was agreed: "That the said Quagliano in consideration of three hundred dollars, to him paid by the said Janulewycz (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged), and in further consideration of the promise of the said Quagliano hereinafter contained, doth hereby promise and agree to and with the said Janulewycz that immediately upon the faithful performance of said Janulewycz's agreement hereinafter made, he, the said Quagliano, will on or before the 1st day of February, 1912, make and deliver to the said Janulewycz a good and sufficient warranty deed, containing the usual covenants in such deeds contained, of all that tract of land situate, lying and being in said Hartford, with all the buildings thereon." The contract also recites: "That whereas the said Quagliano is now engaged in a lawsuit with Gold and Zinman over the premises above referred to, which ease is now pending, that he, the said Quagliano will use due diligence and expediency to dispose of said lawsuit and clear the property, and should the case not be settled by February 1st, 1912, this agreement shall be extended until March 1st, 1912." At the time of the execution and delivery of this written agreement, there was recorded in the Hartford Land Records a bond for a deed, wherein the defendant agreed and promised to convey to Joseph Gold and Harry Zinman the property in question.
When the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant was made, there was an action pending in the city court of Hartford, commenced by Gold and Zinman against the defendant to compel a conveyance of this property to them by reason of a provision in this bond for a deed. The plaintiff made several unsuccessful attempts to secure a mutual rescission of the agreement which he had made with the defendant.
On March 1, 1912, the plaintiff was ready, able, and willing to carry out his part of the agreement, and on said date he requested of the defendant the conveyance of a good, marketable title of the land described in the agreement. The defendant thereupon tendered to the plaintiff a warranty deed of this tract of land, with the usual covenants in such deeds contained, purporting to convey title to the premises in question. The plaintiff, on account of the bond for a deed and the pendency of the action to compel the transfer of the property, refused to accept the deed which was proffered, and demanded the return of the $300, which the defendant refused to pay.
Louis H. Katz, of Hartford, for appellant.
Benedict E. Lyons and David B. Henney, both of Hartford, for appellee.
RORABACK, J. (after stating the facts as above). The language in the contract "to make and deliver to the said Janulewycz a good and sufficient warranty deed containing the usual covenants in such deeds," meant that the defendant was to convey a good and sufficient title to the tract of land described in the written agreement. There is something more in the contract before us to demonstrate that the parties to it intended that the plaintiff was to have a good record title, and that the claim of Gold and Zinman was recognized as an incumbrance upon the property. The defendant, by the written provisions of the contract, agreed that he would use due diligence to dispose of the lawsuit of Gold and Zinman, and clear the property of this incumbrance, and that, if the case should not be settled by February 1st, the agreement should be extended to March 1, 1912. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giulietti v. Giulietti
...Inc. v. Stoll, 168 Conn. 79, 83, 357 A.2d 481 (1975); Lebowitz v. McPike, 157 Conn. 235, 246, 253 A.2d 1 (1968); Janulewycz v. Quagliano, 88 Conn. 60, 64, 89 A. 897 (1914); State v. Tubbs, 52 Conn. App. 636, 640, 727 A.2d 776 Attorney Giulietti's reliance on Community Collaborative of Bridg......
-
Duksa v. City of Middletown
...under it.' Jones v. Brinsmade, 183 N.Y. 258, 262, 76 N.E. 22; Valente v. Weinberg, 80 Conn. 134, 135, 67 A. 369; Janulewycz v. Quagliano, 88 Conn. 60, 64, 89 A. 897; 3 Black, Rescission (2d Ed.), § 704; Restatement, 2 Contracts, § 410, comment b, illustration 2; 12 Am.Jur. 1019, 1038; 13 C.......
-
Slattery v. Maykut
...were thereby excused from performance. They had a right to restitution for money paid to a defaulting vendor. Janulewycz v. Quagliano, 88 Conn. 60, 64, 89 A. 897; 5 Corbin, Contracts, § 1108. The trial court did not err, therefore, in ordering the return with interest of the In the first ca......
-
Simmons v. Sorrentino
...and have recovered damages for nonperformance by the defendants. Lunde v. Minch, 105 Conn. 657, 659, 136 A. 552; Janulewycz v. Quagliano, 88 Conn. 60, 64, 89 A. 897. Or, after default by the defendants, the plaintiff might have elected to rescind the contract and sue for the advancements ma......