From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Zaist v. Olson
Connecticut Supreme Court
154 Conn. 563, 227 A.2d 552 (1967)
Zaist (plaintiff) performed clearing and grading of land in Groton, New London, and Waterford, Connecticut, to be developed for shopping centers. At times, Martin Olson (Olson) (defendant) owned this land individually. At other times, various corporations owned by Olson owned this land, including Martin Olson, Inc. (Olson, Inc.) (defendant). Zaist and other contractors (plaintiffs) dealt with Olson, who directed them to The East Haven Homes, Inc. (East Haven) (defendant) for payment. East Haven had few assets but received funds to pay the contractors through bank loans arranged by Olson and secured by the New London land. All checks issued to pay bills were East Haven checks signed by either Olson, as president, or its vice president. Olson, Olson, Inc., East Haven, The New London Shopping Center, Inc., and Viking, Inc., had offices at the same address. Olson’s secretary also served as secretary and bookkeeper for Olson, Inc., and East Haven. During Zaist and the other contractors’ work, East Haven maintained an office and a checking account, kept corporate and financial records, filed corporation returns, and had employees. The record reflected a single meeting of Olson, Inc., at which it voted to sell land to The New London Shopping Center, Inc., as well as a single meeting of Viking, Inc., which authorized Olson to borrow money as he deemed advisable. East Haven’s only corporate action found relating to these projects consisted of two votes authorizing contracts with Olson, Inc., which were never entered into, to build shopping centers in Groton and New London. Zaist was owed $23,000 and sued Olson, Olson, Inc., and East Haven. The lower court found for Zaist against Olson, Olson, Inc, and East Haven based on the referee’s report and an agency relationship.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Alcorn, J.)
Dissent (Cotter, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.