Corato v. Raffone

Connecticut Superior Court

Corato v. Raffone

11 Conn. Super. Ct. 446, 11 Conn. Supp. 446, 1943 Conn. Super. LEXIS 11

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 26, 1943

DocketFile 63012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 Conn. Super. Ct. 446 (Corato v. Raffone) 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

Corato v. Raffone, 11 Conn. Super. Ct. 446, 11 Conn. Supp. 446, 1943 Conn. Super. LEXIS 11 (Colo. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum of decision in scire facias proceeding.

QUINLAN, J.

This is a scire facias proceeding in pur' suance of our garnishment statute (Gen. Stat. [1930] §5763.) It involves that part of the statute covering “any debt, • legacy or distributive share” that is or may become due to a defendant from the estate of a deceased person.

In the original action (No. 55517, Superior Court, New Haven County) this defendant was garnisheed. The defend' ant debtor in the original action had an interest in the estate of one Peter Corato. 'The defendant is his administratrix. While our court has construed the word “due” in our foreign attachment statute in the sense of “owing” rather than in the more restricted sense of “payable” (Finch vs. Great American Ins. Co., 101 Conn. 332, 335), nevertheless judgment on scire facias cannot be rendered against an administrator before the time when it becomes his duty to deliver to the legatee the distributive share attached. Johnes vs. Jackson, 67 Conn. 81, 91.

Under the facts here distribution was ordered after the ac' ceptance of the account on April 19, 1941; hence it was pay' able. -But the defendant says Corato was indebted to her in an amount greater than the amount for which distribution was ordered. We have no decisions that could be located on set' *447 off in garnishment proceedings. It is true, too, that no claim was ever pressed by this defendant against the debtor. This does not prevent the assertion of a set-off whatever effect it might have on the prosecution of an affirmative claim.

However, until the pleading of set-off is put in the form and substance of such a claim judgment will be withheld.

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

Memorandum of decision in scire facias proceeding.

QUINLAN, J.

This is a scire facias proceeding in pur' suance of our garnishment statute (Gen. Stat. [1930] §5763.) It involves that part of the statute covering “any debt, • legacy or distributive share” that is or may become due to a defendant from the estate of a deceased person.

In the original action (No. 55517, Superior Court, New Haven County) this defendant was garnisheed. The defend' ant debtor in the original action had an interest in the estate of one Peter Corato. 'The defendant is his administratrix. While our court has construed the word “due” in our foreign attachment statute in the sense of “owing” rather than in the more restricted sense of “payable” (Finch vs. Great American Ins. Co., 101 Conn. 332, 335), nevertheless judgment on scire facias cannot be rendered against an administrator before the time when it becomes his duty to deliver to the legatee the distributive share attached. Johnes vs. Jackson, 67 Conn. 81, 91.

Under the facts here distribution was ordered after the ac' ceptance of the account on April 19, 1941; hence it was pay' able. -But the defendant says Corato was indebted to her in an amount greater than the amount for which distribution was ordered. We have no decisions that could be located on set' *447 off in garnishment proceedings. It is true, too, that no claim was ever pressed by this defendant against the debtor. This does not prevent the assertion of a set-off whatever effect it might have on the prosecution of an affirmative claim.

However, until the pleading of set-off is put in the form and substance of such a claim judgment will be withheld.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Conn. Super. Ct. 446, 11 Conn. Supp. 446, 1943 Conn. Super. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corato-v-raffone-connsuperct-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack