Pelletier v. Joseph

Connecticut Superior Court

Pelletier v. Joseph

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 162, 6 Conn. Supp. 162, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 83

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 13, 1938

DocketFile #55599

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 162 (Pelletier v. Joseph) 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

Pelletier v. Joseph, 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 162, 6 Conn. Supp. 162, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 83 (Colo. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLS, J.

The plaintiff has sued Joseph and Gates, and Joseph, Incorporated.

It is alleged that the Josephs, as real estate brokers, interested the plaintiff in a certain piece of real estate and falsely and fraudulently represented that the lowest price was $10,000 for ten acres and the buildings thereon; that the premises were part of a 36'acre parcel owned by the Thorston Realty Co., *163 listed with Joseph, Inc.; that the plaintiff paid the price; that the Josephs secretly acquired the 36 acres for $8,300, and took title in Gates’s name, Gates being a dummy, who conveyed 18 acres to the plaintiff, and retained 18 acres.

The plaintiff asks that the remaining 18 acres be conveyed to her, for damages, and such other equitable relief as may be proper.

First as to the demurrer of Gates. The seventh ground is that it does not appear Gates participated in any fraud that may have been practiced.

It does not appear anywhere in the complaint that Gates had any knowledge of any fraud, or that he knew of or participated in any false or fraudulent representation. Therefore, in so far as the complaint as it now stands is concerned,, he is out, and his demurrer is sustained.

As to the demurrer of the Josephs’. The complaint does, allege that a fraud was practiced; and that it was in violation of the duty the Josephs owed to their principal; and that she was damaged thereby. This demurrer is overruled.

As to the demurrer to the prayer for relief. The brief discussion of the previous demurrers covers this one also, and this demurrer is overruled, as to the Josephs. Gates is not concerned, his demurrer as to the merits of the case having been heretofore sustained.

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

ELLS, J.

The plaintiff has sued Joseph and Gates, and Joseph, Incorporated.

It is alleged that the Josephs, as real estate brokers, interested the plaintiff in a certain piece of real estate and falsely and fraudulently represented that the lowest price was $10,000 for ten acres and the buildings thereon; that the premises were part of a 36'acre parcel owned by the Thorston Realty Co., *163 listed with Joseph, Inc.; that the plaintiff paid the price; that the Josephs secretly acquired the 36 acres for $8,300, and took title in Gates’s name, Gates being a dummy, who conveyed 18 acres to the plaintiff, and retained 18 acres.

The plaintiff asks that the remaining 18 acres be conveyed to her, for damages, and such other equitable relief as may be proper.

First as to the demurrer of Gates. The seventh ground is that it does not appear Gates participated in any fraud that may have been practiced.

It does not appear anywhere in the complaint that Gates had any knowledge of any fraud, or that he knew of or participated in any false or fraudulent representation. Therefore, in so far as the complaint as it now stands is concerned,, he is out, and his demurrer is sustained.

As to the demurrer of the Josephs’. The complaint does, allege that a fraud was practiced; and that it was in violation of the duty the Josephs owed to their principal; and that she was damaged thereby. This demurrer is overruled.

As to the demurrer to the prayer for relief. The brief discussion of the previous demurrers covers this one also, and this demurrer is overruled, as to the Josephs. Gates is not concerned, his demurrer as to the merits of the case having been heretofore sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 162, 6 Conn. Supp. 162, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelletier-v-joseph-connsuperct-1938.