From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curry v. Jockmus

Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, New Haven, June Term, 1927
Oct 3, 1927
138 A. 809 (Conn. 1927)

Opinion

The questions arising in this case are determined by the opinion in Tuttle v. Jockmus, ante, p. 683.

Argued June 15th, 1927

Decided October 3d 1927.

ACTION upon a promise alleged to have been made by the defendant to pay a portion of a mortgage debt evidenced by a series of promissory notes payable to the plaintiffs, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, where the defendant's demurrers to the complaint and the amended complaint were sustained ( Ells, J., and Simpson, J.) and upon the failure of the plaintiffs to plead further, judgment was rendered ( Simpson, J.) for the defendant, from which the plaintiffs appealed. Error and cause remanded.

O. K. Reeves, of Tampa, Florida, and Philip Reich, with whom was Samuel Reich, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Robert L. Munger, for the appellee (defendant).


This case involves the same questions as its companion case, Tuttle v. Jockmus, ante, p. 683. The only difference is in the acceleration clause which in this case reads, "and if default shall be made in the payment of any one of said notes at the time of its maturity, or of the interest due on said notes." The defendant does not demur for uncertainty, as in the companion case, "but only because such clause does not appear in the notes." The opinion in the Tuttle case determines this case.


Summaries of

Curry v. Jockmus

Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, New Haven, June Term, 1927
Oct 3, 1927
138 A. 809 (Conn. 1927)
Case details for

Curry v. Jockmus

Case Details

Full title:WHITNEY CURRY ET AL. vs. CHARLES H. JOCKMUS

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, New Haven, June Term, 1927

Date published: Oct 3, 1927

Citations

138 A. 809 (Conn. 1927)
138 A. 809

Citing Cases

Tuttle v. Jockmus

No error. These cases were tried together and involve the same issues. they were before this court ( Tuttle…