Wolf v. Wallingford Bank & Trust Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Wolf v. Wallingford Bank & Trust Co.

4 Conn. Supp. 15, 122 Conn. 507, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 76

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 16, 1936

DocketFile #48101

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Conn. Supp. 15 (Wolf v. Wallingford Bank & Trust 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

Wolf v. Wallingford Bank & Trust Co., 4 Conn. Supp. 15, 122 Conn. 507, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 76 (Colo. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLS, J.

A court hesitates to deprive a plaintiff of a trial on the merits, especially in a case alleging fraud, when it is reasonably clear that the ultimate issue of law is really before [16]*16it. If the evidence will throw light on the fairness and cor' rectness in law of the ultimate decision, the case ought not be thrown out on demurrer.

Here, the reasons of demurrer are two. One is that it appears the agreement is contrary to public policy, and void. Paragraph 8 contains these words “and so that she might administer the same for the benefit of all the plaintiffs herein”. That is sufficient against demurrer. And a Court of Equity, if it acts, would do just that.

The other allegation is that the agreement is void as being in contravention of the Statute of Frauds. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff “fulfilled all the obligations on her part to be performed thereunder”.

The demurrer is overruled.

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

ELLS, J.

A court hesitates to deprive a plaintiff of a trial on the merits, especially in a case alleging fraud, when it is reasonably clear that the ultimate issue of law is really before [16]*16it. If the evidence will throw light on the fairness and cor' rectness in law of the ultimate decision, the case ought not be thrown out on demurrer.

Here, the reasons of demurrer are two. One is that it appears the agreement is contrary to public policy, and void. Paragraph 8 contains these words “and so that she might administer the same for the benefit of all the plaintiffs herein”. That is sufficient against demurrer. And a Court of Equity, if it acts, would do just that.

The other allegation is that the agreement is void as being in contravention of the Statute of Frauds. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff “fulfilled all the obligations on her part to be performed thereunder”.

The demurrer is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Conn. Supp. 15, 122 Conn. 507, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-wallingford-bank-trust-co-connsuperct-1936.