Connecticut Savings Bank v. Reilly

12 Conn. Supp. 327, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 12
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided January 11, 1944·No. File No. 64518·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

O’SULLIVAN, J.

At common law, the available defenses to a complaint seeking the foreclosure of a mortgage are limited to such things as payment, discharge, release, satsifaction or the invalidity of the lien. Petterson vs. Weinstock, 106 Conn., 436, 441. Under no stretch of the imagination can one interpret the legal special defense [alleged abuse of [328]*328process wrought by excessiveness of attachment with which suit begun] as falling within any of the above classifications. It does not avoid the plaintiff’s cause of action and is totally without merit as a defense.

The demurrer is sustained on all grounds.

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

Connecticut Savings Bank v. Reilly, 12 Conn. Supp. 327, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 12 (Colo. Ct. App. 1944).

12 Conn. Supp. 327 (Connecticut Savings Bank v. Reilly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers
212 A.3d 226 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2019)