Case ID: conn_106/html/0697-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wheeler, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Whitney Curry et al. vs. Charles H. Jockmus.
    Third Judicial District, New Haven,
    June Term, 1927.
    Wheeler, C. J., Maltbie, Haines, Hinman and Avert, Js.
    The questions arising in this case are determined by the opinion in Tuttle v. Jockmus, ante, p. 683.
    Argued June 15th
    —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).
   Wheeler, C. J.

This ease 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.

There is error, the judgment is set aside tod the cause remanded to be proceeded with according to law.

In this opinion the other judges concurred, except Maltbie and Hinman, Js., who dissented.