Bowles v. Manchester Development Corp.

D. Connecticut

Bowles v. Manchester Development Corp.

61 F. Supp. 647, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2023

CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut

DecidedMay 1, 1945

DocketCiv. A. No. 1342

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 F. Supp. 647 (Bowles v. Manchester Development Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowles v. Manchester Development Corp., 61 F. Supp. 647, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2023 (D. Conn. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, District Judge.

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum of Decision filed in Bowles v. Westbrook Defense Homes, D.C., 61 F.Supp. 172, the mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff must be granted here.

The argument pressed by this defendant, that money retained in trust is not retained within the meaning of the regulation, is not persuasive. A trust relationship to the deposit must have been expected by the administrator in a substantial percentage of security deposit cases, from the very nature and purpose of the transaction, and any intention to omit those cases from the general language of the regulation would surely have been expressed.

Form of judgment for the plaintiff for a mandatory injunction, requiring refund of security deposits now retained, may be submitted on notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SMITH, District Judge.

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum of Decision filed in Bowles v. Westbrook Defense Homes, D.C., 61 F.Supp. 172, the mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff must be granted here.

The argument pressed by this defendant, that money retained in trust is not retained within the meaning of the regulation, is not persuasive. A trust relationship to the deposit must have been expected by the administrator in a substantial percentage of security deposit cases, from the very nature and purpose of the transaction, and any intention to omit those cases from the general language of the regulation would surely have been expressed.

Form of judgment for the plaintiff for a mandatory injunction, requiring refund of security deposits now retained, may be submitted on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 F. Supp. 647, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-manchester-development-corp-ctd-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack