Case Name: Whitney Curry et al. vs. Charles H. Jockmus
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1927-10-03
Citations: 106 Conn. 697
Docket Number: 
Parties: Whitney Curry et al. vs. Charles H. Jockmus.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 697–698

Head Matter:
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.
Argued June 15th
—decided October 3d, 1927.
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).

Opinion:
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.