Chasnoff v. Porto

Connecticut Superior Court

Chasnoff v. Porto

16 Conn. Super. Ct. 464, 16 Conn. Supp. 464, 1950 Conn. Super. LEXIS 21

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 10, 1950

DocketFile 73156

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Conn. Super. Ct. 464 (Chasnoff v. Porto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chasnoff v. Porto, 16 Conn. Super. Ct. 464, 16 Conn. Supp. 464, 1950 Conn. Super. LEXIS 21 (Colo. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

O’SULLIVAN, J.

This demurrer presents as its main problem the question of the legality of Burke’s action when, while acting as an assistant clerk of the Superior Court, he issued a pluries execution before an outstanding alias execution had been returned.

Strange as it may seem, there is little law to be found on this question. Perhaps the fullest statement appears in Freeman, Executions (3rd Ed.) § 49. The principle which seems to have the fairest tinge is that it is irregular to issue an alias execution until the outstanding one is returned. If the latter has been lost or destroyed, the officer should so state in a proper affidavit by way of return. »

The principle is strengthened in this case by a rule of court (Practice Book § 399) referring to motions to reargue cases before the Supreme Court. The pluries execution was issued within ten days following the handing down by the Supreme Court of an opinion in a case which sought injunctive relief against the outstanding execution I have referred to above. A clerk at his peril will issue an execution within such ten days, whether a motion to reargue is filed or not.

In view of the foregoing, the demurrer must be overruled.

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

O’SULLIVAN, J.

This demurrer presents as its main problem the question of the legality of Burke’s action when, while acting as an assistant clerk of the Superior Court, he issued a pluries execution before an outstanding alias execution had been returned.

Strange as it may seem, there is little law to be found on this question. Perhaps the fullest statement appears in Freeman, Executions (3rd Ed.) § 49. The principle which seems to have the fairest tinge is that it is irregular to issue an alias execution until the outstanding one is returned. If the latter has been lost or destroyed, the officer should so state in a proper affidavit by way of return. »

The principle is strengthened in this case by a rule of court (Practice Book § 399) referring to motions to reargue cases before the Supreme Court. The pluries execution was issued within ten days following the handing down by the Supreme Court of an opinion in a case which sought injunctive relief against the outstanding execution I have referred to above. A clerk at his peril will issue an execution within such ten days, whether a motion to reargue is filed or not.

In view of the foregoing, the demurrer must be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Conn. Super. Ct. 464, 16 Conn. Supp. 464, 1950 Conn. Super. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chasnoff-v-porto-connsuperct-1950.