Knapp v. Rose

Connecticut Superior Court

Knapp v. Rose

5 Conn. Supp. 333, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 155

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1937

DocketFile #53638

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Conn. Supp. 333 (Knapp v. Rose) 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

Knapp v. Rose, 5 Conn. Supp. 333, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 155 (Colo. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

BOOTH, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover remuneration for services rendered to and moneys expended for the defendant’s decedent during a period while he was a member of the decedent’s family living as one household.

Such a plaintiff in order to recover must affirmatively show either that an express contract for the remuneration existed, ■or that the circumstances under which the services and expenditures were rendered and made were such as exhibit a reasonable and proper expectation that there would be compensation therefor. (Cotter vs. Cotter, 82 Conn. 331 at 332.) In the present case the plaintiff ‘failed to establish either of [334]*334the foregoing situations.

Judgment is therefore rendered for the defendant upon the issues of the complaint, and for the defendant to recover of the plaintiff her costs.

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

BOOTH, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover remuneration for services rendered to and moneys expended for the defendant’s decedent during a period while he was a member of the decedent’s family living as one household.

Such a plaintiff in order to recover must affirmatively show either that an express contract for the remuneration existed, ■or that the circumstances under which the services and expenditures were rendered and made were such as exhibit a reasonable and proper expectation that there would be compensation therefor. (Cotter vs. Cotter, 82 Conn. 331 at 332.) In the present case the plaintiff ‘failed to establish either of [334]*334the foregoing situations.

Judgment is therefore rendered for the defendant upon the issues of the complaint, and for the defendant to recover of the plaintiff her costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Conn. Supp. 333, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knapp-v-rose-connsuperct-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack