Liegeois v. McCracken

The complaint does not appear to be demur-rable, as showing on its face that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It sets forth that the contract sued on was a parol contract made in Connecticut, and to be performed there, and that by the law of Connecticut it was and is a valid contract in law, and the consideration for it, set forth in the complaint, was a good consideration for the promises contained in the contract. This seems to be so by the decision in Smith v. Richards, 29 Conn. 232. But, even if not so, the complaint alleges it to be so, and hence is not demurrable for the cause alleged. The defendant may answer in 20 days on payment of costs.