Ziulkoski v. Barker
| Decision Date | 05 March 1920 |
| Citation | 94 Conn. 491,109 A. 185 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | ZIULKOSKI v. BARKER. |
Appeal from City Court of Meriden; Thomas P. Dunne, Judge.
Action by John Ziulkoski against James Barker. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals. Judgment set aside and new trial ordered.
The plaintiff was the owner of a farm which he deeded to the defendant. He also owned personal property of various kinds situated upon the farm or in the buildings thereon. Coincident with the transfer to the defendant of the real estate the plaintiff executed a bill of sale of certain of his personal property to the defendant in the following language:
Upon the premises at the time was the property enumerated in the complaint, to wit: 1 keg containing 8 gallons of wine, 1 barrel containing 34 gallons of cider, 20 glasses of crab apple jelly, 15 quart cans of tomatoes, 6 quart cans of corn 6 quart cans of string beans, 6 quart cans of pears, 1/2 barrel of sauerkraut, 4 bushels of potatoes, 5 bottles of elderberry juice, 10 bushels of apples, 1 sauerkraut chopper 1 stove grate, 1 bucksaw, 1 canning table, 2 bushels of coke, 1 kerosene oil can, and 1 pitcher. When the time arrived for the plaintiff's removal from the premises, a dispute arose over this property. The plaintiff claimed the right to remove it; the defendant to have it remain. The latter took possession of it and prevented its removal. Thereupon this action was brought.
Alfred B. Aubrey and Irving G. Smith, both of Meriden, for appellant.
I. Henry Mag, of Meriden, for appellee.
The plaintiff charges the defendant with the wrongful conversion of certain articles of personal property. The defendant justifies his admitted detention of them by a claim of ownership by virtue of a bill of sale from the plaintiff to him. Unless this admitted bill of sale embraces the property in suit, the plaintiff must prevail. The court below held that all the property was so embraced, and accordingly rendered judgment for the defendant.
A few of the articles enumerated in the complaint fall within the descriptive language used to identify those included in the bill of sale, and well might have been found to be the very ones sold. These few articles, apparently of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connecticut Union of Tel. Workers, Inc. v. Southern New England Tel. Co.
...as a fourth stage of the job evaluation appeal procedure. Terms cannot be added to a contract by interpretation. Ziulkoski v. Barker, 94 Conn. 491, 494, 109 A. 185; Williams v. Lilley, 67 Conn. 50, 59, 34 A. 765, 37 L.R.A. 150. The contract expressly made stage 3 the final step of the job e......
-
Dugan v. Grzybowski
...to have had. Perruccio v. Allen, supra, 285 of 156 Conn., 240 A.2d 912. An unexpressed intent is of no significance. Ziulkoski v. Barker, 94 Conn. 491, 494, 109 A. 185; see also Schubert v. Ivey, 158 Conn. 583, 589, 264 A.2d 562; Hansel v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co., 133 Conn. 181, 194,......
-
In re Pickus
...& Mortgage Co. v. Lesser, 136 Conn. 580, 583, 72 A.2d 805. Furthermore, an unexpressed intent is of no significance. Ziulkoski v. Barker, 94 Conn. 491, 494, 109 A. 185. The controlling factor is the intent expressed in the lease, not the intent which the parties may have had or which the co......
-
Rayhol Co. v. Holland
... ... agreement, we cannot regard any unexpressed intent, but only ... that which in them does find expression. Ziulkoski v ... Barker, 94 Conn. 491, 494, 109 A. 185 ... The ... main provisions of the declaration of trust stated in the ... agreement and ... ...