Simone v. Kirschner, 124 A. 20 (Conn. 1924). · Go Syfert
Search
Simone v. Kirschner, 124 A. 20 (Conn. 1924). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stowe v. Saul (akd, 2021-04-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1924 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1924 1975 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stowe v. Saul
D. Alaska · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also A.R. 52–53. 120 Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F. 3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (b)). 121 Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). 122 Revels, 874 F.3d at 654 . 123 Sousa v. Callahan, 143 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). 124 A.R. 20–21. 125 A.R. 25 . did not include Dr. Lebeau’s opinion that Plaintiff was limited to standing for three hours and walking for one hour in an eight-hour workday.126 The ALJ’s reason for rejecting Dr. Lebeau’s standing and walking limitation is not s…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fgb Realty Advisors v. Seven Winds Realty, No. Cv 94 0066261 (Dec. 22, 1995) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Simone v. Kirschner, 100 Conn. 427 , 124 A. 20 ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Brian Construction and Development Co. v. Brighenti, 176 Conn. 162 , 166 , 405 A.2d 72 (1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fgb Realty Advisors, Inc. v. Seven Winds, No. Cv 94 0066260 (Dec. 22, 1995) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Simone v. Kirschner, 100 Conn. 427 , 124 A. 20 ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Brian Construction and Development Co. v. Brighenti, 176 Conn. 162 , 166 , 405 A.2d 72 (1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." fifty/unionoreo v. Russell Sirianni Asso., No. Cv94 0356903s (Jun. 7, 1995) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Simone v. Kirschner, 100 Conn. 427 , CT Page 7204 124 A. 20 ." (Emphasis added).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brian Construction & Development Co. v. Brighenti (2×)
Conn. · 1978 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Simone v. Kirschner, 100 Conn. 427 , 124 A. 20 . *167 In Blakeslee v. Board of Water Commissioners, supra, 656, this court, in analyzing these traditional principles, articulated the evolving rule that “ ‘where a contract must be performed under burdensome conditions not anticipated, and not within the contemplation of the parties at the time when the contract was made, and the promisee measures up to the right standard of honesty and fair dealing, and agrees, in view of the changed conditions, to pay what is then reasonable, just, and fair, such new contract is not without cons…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Simone
v.
Fred F. Kirschner.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 1, 1924.
124 A. 20
James M. Lynch , with whom was John H. Burns , for the appellant (defendant). Alfonse C. Fasano , with whom was Frank Crapanzano , for the appellee (plaintiff).
Wheeler, Beach, Curtis, Keeler, Hinman.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
Hinman, J.

The rule against the admission of parol evidence to vary a written instrument does not apply to the establishment by parol of an agreement between the parties entered into subsequent to the time when the instrument was executed, notwithstanding such agreement may have the effect of changing the contract evidenced by writing. Such parol evidence does[*429] not controvert the original agreement but seeks to establish that the parties have, for a legal consideration, by a subsequent, distinct and separate transaction, exercised their right to change the terms of that agreement. Shopper Publishing Co. v. Skat Co., 90 Conn. 317, 97 Atl. 317; Barber v. Brace, 3 Conn. 9; 5 Wigmore on Evidence, § 2441; 22 Corpus Juris, p. 1273, § 1693. In such case the effect of the admission of evidence as to the subsequent agreement is not to vary the original written contract, but to tend to prove a new agreement. An oral agreement, made subsequent to the execution of a note, extending or otherwise changing the time of payment specified in the note, is well within this class of transactions and may be proved by parol. 10 R. C. L. p. 1034; Low v. Treadwell, 12 Me. 441; Grafton Bank v. Woodward, 5 N. H. 99; Farnham v. Ingham, 5 Vt. 514; Ferguson v. Hill, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 485, 21 Amer. Dec. 641.

Such an agreement for extension of time for payment, since it involves a promise by the holder to forbear, must be supported by a consideration, but there is such a consideration if the debtor does, or promises to do, something further or different from that which he is bound to do. The placing of the automobile in the possession of the plaintiff, as alleged in the special defense, under the conditions therein set forth, would, if established, constitute a sufficient consideration for an agreement changing the time for payment of the note.

There is error and a new trial is ordered.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.