undoubted rule in Connecticut

1992Sciola next relies on the undoubted rule that "time is ordinarily not of the essence in transactions involving real property." Kakalik v. Bernardo, 184 Conn. 386 , 393 , 439 A.2d 1016 (1981).

1992Sciola next relies on the undoubted rule that "time is ordinarily not of the essence in transactions involving real property." Kakalik v. Bernardo, 184 Conn. 386 , 393 , 439 A.2d 1016 (1981).

1928We have followed the weight of authority in holding the impropriety of an attorney so testifying not to be an error of law, so as to make a mistrial, relying upon “the restraining influence of a professional education and of the opinion of the bar and bench, and the liability to discipline for persistent misconduct, as competent to suppress evils of this character.” French v. Waterbury, 72 Conn. 435, 437 , 44 Atl. 740 ; Kaeser v. Bloomer, 85 Conn. 209, 211 , 82 Atl. 112 .

1928We have followed the weight of authority in holding the impropriety of an attorney so testifying not to be an error of law, so as to make a mistrial, relying upon “the restraining influence of a professional education and of the opinion of the bar and bench, and the liability to discipline for persistent misconduct, as competent to suppress evils of this character.” French v. Waterbury, 72 Conn. 435, 437 , 44 Atl. 740 ; Kaeser v. Bloomer, 85 Conn. 209, 211 , 82 Atl. 112 .

1928We have followed the weight of authority in holding the impropriety of an attorney so testifying not to be an error of law, so as to make a mistrial, relying upon “the restraining influence of a professional education and of the opinion of the bar and bench, and the liability to discipline for persistent misconduct, as competent to suppress evils of this character.” French v. Waterbury, 72 Conn. 435, 437 , 44 Atl. 740 ; Kaeser v. Bloomer, 85 Conn. 209, 211 , 82 Atl. 112 .

1928We have followed the weight of authority in holding the impropriety of an attorney so testifying not to be an error of law, so as to make a mistrial, relying upon “the restraining influence of a professional education and of the opinion of the bar and bench, and the liability to discipline for persistent misconduct, as competent to suppress evils of this character.” French v. Waterbury, 72 Conn. 435, 437 , 44 Atl. 740 ; Kaeser v. Bloomer, 85 Conn. 209, 211 , 82 Atl. 112 .

1927The case of Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491 , has been cited' with approval many times by the United States Supreme Court and never been directly disapproved of in any particular, so far as we have ascertained.

1927We said: “The undoubted rule is that, for the purposes of taxation, a debt is property at the residence or domicil of the creditor.” See also Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U. S. 54, 58 , 38 Sup. Ct. 40; Silberman v. Blodgett, 105 Conn. 192 , 134 Atl. 778 .

1927We said: “The undoubted rule is that, for the purposes of taxation, a debt is property at the residence or domicil of the creditor.” See also Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U. S. 54, 58 , 38 Sup. Ct. 40; Silberman v. Blodgett, 105 Conn. 192 , 134 Atl. 778 .

1927We said: “The undoubted rule is that, for the purposes of taxation, a debt is property at the residence or domicil of the creditor.” See also Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U. S. 54, 58 , 38 Sup. Ct. 40; Silberman v. Blodgett, 105 Conn. 192 , 134 Atl. 778 .

1894Emery v. Parrott, 107 Mass., 95 .

1874The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Willison v. Walkins, 3 Peters, 43 , says:—“ It is an undoubted principle of law fully recognized by this court, that a tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord, by setting up a title either in himself or in a third person, during the existence of the lease or tenancy. . .