Woodruff v. Butler

Decision Date10 June 1903
Citation55 A. 167,76 Conn. 679
PartiesWOODRUFF v. BUTLER.
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Litchfield County; Gideon H. Welch, Judge.

Action for rent by George M. Woodruff, trustee, against Elliott L. Butler. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The following facts were found: The defendant's wife was his agent to hire a furnished house for the summer. The house in question was shown her by the plaintiff's broker, and the bounds of the house lot pointed out. She offered $000 for its use, as then furnished, for four months, and the offer was accepted. The house was then occupied by a Mrs. Wiggin, for whom and others the defendant was trustee. It was agreed that a written lease should be sent to the defendant. One was executed by the plaintiff, giving the bounds of the lot, and describing the house as a "certain fully furnished dwelling house," and the rent as payable in monthly payments of $150 each; and the broker sent it to the defendant by mail. It was in the form of an indenture between the parties, with reciprocal covenants by each, and the concluding clause was, "In witness whereof the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this 12th day of May, 1902. The defendant then first learned who owned the house. He wrote back to the broker on May 14th that the lease was all right, asking if its return was desired, and adding that if returned he should have nothing to show as evidence of his rights. The broker at once replied by mail that he wished its return, but would have it recorded or give him a copy of it, if desired. Meanwhile Mrs. Wiggin had made some requests to Mrs. Butler as to the furniture to be left in the house, and the use of the garden. This occasioned dissatisfaction, and on May 17th the defendant wrote the broker, returning the lease, and saying that he had decided not to take the house. He did not, and Mrs. Wiggin continued in its occupancy. This action was brought after the lapse of three months of the terms specified in the lease, for three months' rent, and the judgment was for $450.

Wilbur G. Manchester, for appellant.

George M. Woodruff, for appellee.

BALDWIN, J. (after stating the facts). The lease sent to the defendant was so executed as to bind the plaintiff. As soon as the defendant wrote back that it was "all right," the statute of frauds was satisfied, and it bound him. It was the evident intention of the broker when the lease was sent that the defendant should sign, seal, and return it. But that he did not do so made it none the less a written memorandum of an agreement for the transfer of an interest in land signed by the owner; and the defendant's letter referring to it, and stating his assent to its terms, was a written memorandum of the same agreement, signed by the party to charge whom the action has been brought. These two papers, taken together, constituted a complete agreement in writing, duly executed by each party.

The defendant asks a correction of the finding, so that it may state explicitly that at the time when the oral agreement for a lease was made it was mutually understood that a written lease should be executed by both the parties. Such a correction would be immaterial. The lease, as executed by the plaintiff, correctly set forth the agreement, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Lonergan
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • September 27, 1988
    ...to bring to the attention of the court the precise matter on which its decision is being asked.' (Emphasis added.) Woodruff v. Butler, 75 Conn. 679, 682, 55 A. 167 (1903)." State v. Carter, 198 Conn. 386, 396, 503 A.2d 576 Although the focus of the state's legal argument in support of its c......
  • State v. Utz
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 19, 1986
    ...to bring to the attention of the court the precise matter on which its decision is being asked.' (Emphasis added.) Woodruff v. Butler, 75 Conn. 679, 682, 55 A. 167 (1903)." State v. Carter, supra, 198 Conn. 396, 503 A.2d 576. The general exception actually taken to the charge was inadequate......
  • State v. Thurman
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 1987
    ...to bring to the attention of the court the precise matter on which its decision is being asked.' (Emphasis added.) Woodruff v. Butler, 75 Conn. 679, 682, 55 A. 167 (1903)." State v. Carter, supra. The defendant's exception to the trial court's charge to the jury, therefore, was inadequate t......
  • W.R. Assoc of Norwalk v. Comm'r of Transp.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • June 18, 1999
    ...stated as intended by Practice Book 5-2. See Easton v. Easton, 172 Conn. 451, 455, 374 A.2d 1090 (1977); Woodruff v. Butler, 75 Conn. 679, 682, 55 A. 167 (1903); C. & C. Electric Motor Co. v. The D. Frisbie & Co., 66 Conn. 67, 79, 33 A. 604 (1898); see also 1 W. Moeller & W. Horton, Connect......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT