Machiz v. Homer Harmon, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 June 1959 |
| Citation | 146 Conn. 523,152 A.2d 629 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Leon MACHIZ v. HOMER HARMON, INC., et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Raphael Korff, Bridgeport, for appellants (defendants).
A. William Rondos, Stamford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.
The complaint is in three counts. In the first count, the plaintiff seeks to recover against the named defendant and two of the individual defendants, Homer and Bernice Harmon, on a note, and in the third count, against the named defendant and the defendant Homer on a judgment obtained in the Supreme Court of New York. In the second count, the plaintiff seeks to set aside a deed given by the defendant Bernice to the defendant Charles Kaplan. The named defendant, hereinafter called the corporation, counterclaimed, seeking damages for breach of contract. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff against all the defendants and they have appealed. They have assigned error in the finding but no changes are warranted.
The pertinent facts can be stated in summary as follows: The plaintiff entered into a contract with the corporation to build a house for him, according to plans to be prepared, on land of the corporation in King's Point, New York. The defendants Homer and Bernice were the shareholders and officers of the corporation. On June 29, 1953, the plaintiff paid $8,200 to the corporation pursuant to his contract. When the contract was executed, there were no completed or approved plans for the construction of the house. Delay followed delay in the preparation of plans, and on February 14, 1954, the corporation having failed to perform any part of the agreement, the plaintiff brought an action in the Supreme Court of New York for performance of the contract or the return of $8,200. Negotiations ensued, and another contract was executed by the parties on March 18, 1954. The defendants Homer and Bernice and the corporation gave the plaintiff their note for $8,200, payable ninety days from date, in consideration of the plaintiff's refraining from pressing his action in court and of his entering into the new contract. The corporation failed to build a house as agreed, and the plaintiff, having made demand upon the note and received no payment, secured a judgment on October 20, 1954, for $8,569.25, which has not been paid. On March 25, 1954, seven days after the note was signed, a deed of real property in Wilton executed by the defendant Bernice and purporting to convey the property to the defendant Kaplan was recorded in the Wilton land records. The signature of the grantor, Bernice, was not witnessed, nor did the notary public taking her acknowledgment insert the date thereof. The note and the judgment not having been paid, the plaintiff instituted the present action and caused the property described in the deed to be attached on December 3, 1954, as property belonging to the defendant Bernice.
We shall by-pass the question whether the deed effected a conveyance of land in this state and dispose of the case on the theory on which it was tried and on which the trial court decided it. See Cole v. Steinlauf, 144 Conn. 629, 632, 136 A.2d 744. The court found that the deed was given to secure an indebtedness of the defendants Homer and Bernice and the corporation to Kaplan and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helbig v. Zoning Commission of Noank Fire Dist.
... ... See Society for Savings v. Chestnut Estates, Inc., 176 Conn. 563, 567, 409 A.2d 1020 (1979); Holley v. Sutherland, 110 ... See Machiz ... Page 952 ... v. Homer Harmon, Inc., 146 Conn. 523, 525, 152 A.2d ... ...
-
State v. Brown
...argued and decided in the trial court. See State v. McKnight, 191 Conn. 564, 578 n. 14, 469 A.2d 397 (1983); Machiz v. Harman, 146 Conn. 523, 525, 152 A.2d 629 (1959). I cannot agree with the majority that the reference in the affidavit to a view of the garage by the officer in September, 1......
-
In re Jacob W., AC 40202
...which the trial court decided it." Fuessenich v. DiNardo, 195 Conn. 144, 151, 487 A.2d 514 (1985) ; see also Machiz v. Homer Harmon, Inc., 146 Conn. 523, 525, 152 A.2d 629 (1959) ; Cole v. Steinlauf, 144 Conn. 629, 631–32, 136 A.2d 744 (1957). In a hearing on a petition to terminate parenta......
-
Dunham v. Dunham
...151, 487 A.2d 514 (1985); Beckenstein v. Potter & Carrier, Inc., 191 Conn. 120, 132 n. 8, 464 A.2d 6 (1983); Machiz v. Homer Harmon, Inc., 146 Conn. 523, 525, 152 A.2d 629 (1959); W. Maltbie, Connecticut Appellate Procedure § 42.7 The third count of the plaintiff's amended complaint provide......