Kapitzke v. F. Mills Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Kapitzke v. F. Mills Co.

6 Conn. Supp. 418, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 156

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 31, 1938

DocketFile #55579

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Conn. Supp. 418 (Kapitzke v. F. Mills Co.) 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

Kapitzke v. F. Mills Co., 6 Conn. Supp. 418, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 156 (Colo. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

CORNELL, J.

The first count describes a number of transactions which were entered into by the plaintiff’s decedent in reliance upon certain representations made to him by one or more of the defendants. Out of this state of facts, it would seem that the plaintiff may claim a cause of action in contract or in tort. It is not necessary that he designate which he will pursue; his only duty is to state the facts. Knapp vs. Walker, 73 Conn. 459. It may be, too, as seems to be indicated by the alternative claims for relief, that he will contend that a fiduciary relationship arose out of the [419]*419dealings of the defendants or some of them toward the decedent which was violated, giving rise to equitable relief in the form of an accounting. The fact that he may claim such relief and also damages for breach of contract in a single count is not reprehensible under our system of pleading. Makusevich vs. Gotta, 107 Conn. 207, 208.

Motion denied.

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

CORNELL, J.

The first count describes a number of transactions which were entered into by the plaintiff’s decedent in reliance upon certain representations made to him by one or more of the defendants. Out of this state of facts, it would seem that the plaintiff may claim a cause of action in contract or in tort. It is not necessary that he designate which he will pursue; his only duty is to state the facts. Knapp vs. Walker, 73 Conn. 459. It may be, too, as seems to be indicated by the alternative claims for relief, that he will contend that a fiduciary relationship arose out of the [419]*419dealings of the defendants or some of them toward the decedent which was violated, giving rise to equitable relief in the form of an accounting. The fact that he may claim such relief and also damages for breach of contract in a single count is not reprehensible under our system of pleading. Makusevich vs. Gotta, 107 Conn. 207, 208.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Conn. Supp. 418, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kapitzke-v-f-mills-co-connsuperct-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack