Buonocore v. Raphael De Feo

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Buonocore v. Raphael De Feo

56 A. 510, 76 Conn. 705, 1903 Conn. LEXIS 110

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 18, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 56 A. 510 (Buonocore v. Raphael De Feo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buonocore v. Raphael De Feo, 56 A. 510, 76 Conn. 705, 1903 Conn. LEXIS 110 (Colo. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

The statute (§ 4048) provides that the holder of a satisfied mortgage who neglects to execute a release deed thereof, within thirty days after a wiitten request and a “ tender ” of the necessary expense, shall pay a penalty to any person aggrieved. In the present case it appeared that the plaintiff presented a proper release deed to the defendant for his signature, and also offered to pay any expense he might incur in its execution; but that the defendant refused to execute the deed until he had received f5, which he claimed the plaintiff owed him in another matter.

*706 The Supreme Court in an opinion by Prentice, J., held that under these circumstances the plaintiff was relieved from the actual production and proffer of the money, and stood in the same legal position he would have occupied had a precise and formal “ tender ” in fact been made. Re-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The statute (§ 4048) provides that the holder of a satisfied mortgage who neglects to execute a release deed thereof, within thirty days after a wiitten request and a “ tender ” of the necessary expense, shall pay a penalty to any person aggrieved. In the present case it appeared that the plaintiff presented a proper release deed to the defendant for his signature, and also offered to pay any expense he might incur in its execution; but that the defendant refused to execute the deed until he had received f5, which he claimed the plaintiff owed him in another matter.

*706 The Supreme Court in an opinion by Prentice, J., held that under these circumstances the plaintiff was relieved from the actual production and proffer of the money, and stood in the same legal position he would have occupied had a precise and formal “ tender ” in fact been made. Re-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A. 510, 76 Conn. 705, 1903 Conn. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buonocore-v-raphael-de-feo-conn-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack