Yaffe v. Glen Falls Indem. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 July 1932 |
| Citation | 161 A. 521,115 Conn. 375 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | YAFFE v. GLEN FALLS INDEMNITY CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Ernest A. Inglis. Newell Jennings, and John A. Cornell, Judges.
Action by Morris Yaffe against the Glen Falls Indemnity Company on a bond. Demurrers to the complaint and amended complaint were sustained, and judgment was rendered for defendant on plaintiff's failure to plead further, and plaintiff appeals.
No error.
Louis H. Katz and I. Oscar Levine, both of Hartford, for appellant.
Allen K. Smith and Thomas S. Whitman, both of Hartford, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
The original complaint was demurred to and the demurrer was sustained. An amendment was again demurred to, and again the demurrer was sustained. The plaintiff failed to plead further, and judgment was given for the defendant, from which judgment this appeal is taken. The complaint as amended contained the following allegations: Dominick A. Fazzano morrgaged certain real estate to the plaintiff. The mortgage contained a provision that the grantee by his acceptance of the instrument agreed to permit the grantor to raze the building or buildings on the premises at any time during the life of the mortgage on condition that before doing so he would give the grantee a surety hand in the sum of $12,000conditioned that within ten years from the date of such razing, the grantor would build another building, to cost not less than $6,000. While the mortgage was still in force, Fazzane, desiring to raze the tenement house upon the premises, gave the plaintiff a bond, executed by the defendant as surety, the condition of which, after referring to the mortgage, stated that Fazzano was about to raze the building upon the premises, and provided that, if he, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns should cause to be erected on the land at his own expense, within the period of ten years, a building to cost not less than $6,000 the obligation of the bond would be void. Otherwise in full force and effect. Fazzano did raze the tenement house, but did not construct a new building. Later he made default in payments due under the mortgage, and the plaintiff brought an action of foreclosure by the judgment, in which, Fazzano failing to redeem, title to the premises became vested in the plaintiff. Meanwhile Fazzano informed the plaintiff that he could not and would not erect a building upon the premises in accordance with his obligation under the mortgage and did not intend ever to do so.
To the complaint as amended the defendant demurred on several grounds, one in effect being that no obligation rested upon the defendant under the hand until the expiration of the 10-year period fixed in its condition for the erection of the building, and another, that no admission by Fazzano could vary,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landmark Inv. Grp., LLC v. Calco Constr.
...contract was not terminated as of the date of the repudiation, we need not consider these arguments.8 Cf. Yaffe v. Glen Falls Indemnity Co.,115 Conn. 375, 378, 161 A. 521 (1932)(“Renunciation of an executory promise requires two things: On the part of the promisor a clear indication of a re......
-
Town of Milford v. O'Neil Bros., Inc.
... ... , 78 Id ... 689; 28 C.J., Guaranty ... §139. Compare Yaffe v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co. , ... 115 Conn. 375 ... It is ... ...
-
Stefanowicz Corp. v. Harris
...Dominey v. Johnson-Brown Co., 219 Ala. 666, 123 So. 52; Robinson v. Raquet, 1 Cal.App.2d 533, 36 P.2d 821; Yaffe v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co., 115 Conn. 375, 161 A. 521; Darnell v. Toney, 45 Ga.App. 27, 162 S.E. 918; Dougherty v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc., 144 Misc. 363, 259 N.Y.S. 146, mod.......
-
Landmark Inv. Grp., LLC v. Calco Constr.
...contract was not terminated as of the date of the repudiation, we need not consider these arguments. 8. Cf. Yaffe v. Glen Falls Indemnity Co., 115 Conn. 375, 378, 161 A. 521 (1932) ("Renunciation of an executory promise requires two things: On the part of the promisor a clear indication of ......