Gotta v. Ferrio, Extr.

Connecticut Superior Court

Gotta v. Ferrio, Extr.

1 Conn. Super. Ct. 1, 1 Conn. Supp. 1, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 21, 1935

DocketFile #45396

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Conn. Super. Ct. 1 (Gotta v. Ferrio, Extr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gotta v. Ferrio, Extr., 1 Conn. Super. Ct. 1, 1 Conn. Supp. 1, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1 (Colo. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

The contract relied upon in the complaint *2 was an oral contract. The consideration of the promise by the defendant’s decedent, as set forth in the complaint, was not alone that the plaintiffs would provide a home for him— not alone that they should intermarry — but the continuing act that they should intermarry and provide a home for him. The intermarrying was a distinct part of the contract without which the contract could not be executed. The contract as set forth in the complaint plainly comes within the statute of frauds, G. S. Sec. 5982. The defect, as it appears in the complaint may be attacked by demurrer. Di Blasi vs. Di Blasi, 114 Conn. 539.

In the more specific statement filed by the plaintiffs, it appears that the promise upon which they rely was one promise often repeated. It would appear that the plaintiffs rely upon such repetitions to constitute the whole promise. Any essential part of the promise made after the wedding of the Plaintiffs was in consideration of the past acts of the plaintiffs and would not be good consideration in law.

The demurrer to the first count of the complaint, as amended, is sustained upon both grounds thereof.

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

FOSTER, J.

The contract relied upon in the complaint *2 was an oral contract. The consideration of the promise by the defendant’s decedent, as set forth in the complaint, was not alone that the plaintiffs would provide a home for him— not alone that they should intermarry — but the continuing act that they should intermarry and provide a home for him. The intermarrying was a distinct part of the contract without which the contract could not be executed. The contract as set forth in the complaint plainly comes within the statute of frauds, G. S. Sec. 5982. The defect, as it appears in the complaint may be attacked by demurrer. Di Blasi vs. Di Blasi, 114 Conn. 539.

In the more specific statement filed by the plaintiffs, it appears that the promise upon which they rely was one promise often repeated. It would appear that the plaintiffs rely upon such repetitions to constitute the whole promise. Any essential part of the promise made after the wedding of the Plaintiffs was in consideration of the past acts of the plaintiffs and would not be good consideration in law.

The demurrer to the first count of the complaint, as amended, is sustained upon both grounds thereof.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Conn. Super. Ct. 1, 1 Conn. Supp. 1, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gotta-v-ferrio-extr-connsuperct-1935.