Greenwood v. Litton Manufacturing Center, No. Cv94 031 49 73 (Apr. 25, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Greenwood v. Litton Manufacturing Center, No. Cv94 031 49 73 (Apr. 25, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4287

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 25, 1995

DocketNo. CV94 031 49 73

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4287 (Greenwood v. Litton Manufacturing Center, No. Cv94 031 49 73 (Apr. 25, 1995)) 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

Greenwood v. Litton Manufacturing Center, No. Cv94 031 49 73 (Apr. 25, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4287 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER RE: MOTION TO REARGUE The relief requested in the motion to reargue is denied. The CT Page 4288 letter of December 17, 1993 from Litton to Attorney Kapusta does not identify who the mortgagee of the Greenwood mortgage is with clarity. In addition, the plaintiff's affidavit indicates that the defendant told her that her mortgage had been transferred to the defendant, Litton.

"It is the duty of the agent, if he would avoid personal liability on a contract entered into by him on behalf of his principal, to disclose not only the fact that he is acting ig in a representative capacity, but also the identity of his principal."Klepp Wood v. Flooring Corp. v. Butterfield, 176 Conn. 528, 532. "Ordinarily the question of an agency is one of fact to be determined by the trier of fact." West Haven Sound DevelopmentCorp. v. West Haven, 201 Conn. 305, 311.

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER RE: MOTION TO REARGUE The relief requested in the motion to reargue is denied. The CT Page 4288 letter of December 17, 1993 from Litton to Attorney Kapusta does not identify who the mortgagee of the Greenwood mortgage is with clarity. In addition, the plaintiff's affidavit indicates that the defendant told her that her mortgage had been transferred to the defendant, Litton.

"It is the duty of the agent, if he would avoid personal liability on a contract entered into by him on behalf of his principal, to disclose not only the fact that he is acting ig in a representative capacity, but also the identity of his principal."Klepp Wood v. Flooring Corp. v. Butterfield, 176 Conn. 528, 532. "Ordinarily the question of an agency is one of fact to be determined by the trier of fact." West Haven Sound DevelopmentCorp. v. West Haven, 201 Conn. 305, 311.

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenwood-v-litton-manufacturing-center-no-cv94-031-49-73-apr-25-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack