Empire Sales Corp. v. Germano

Connecticut Appellate Court

Empire Sales Corp. v. Germano

232 A.2d 512, 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 395, 1966 Conn. Cir. LEXIS 207

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJuly 19, 1966

DocketFile No. CV 1-6411-9641

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.2d 512 (Empire Sales Corp. v. Germano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Empire Sales Corp. v. Germano, 232 A.2d 512, 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 395, 1966 Conn. Cir. LEXIS 207 (Colo. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Wise, J.

The plaintiff instituted this action of replevin by writ and complaint dated October 28, 1964. On November 20, 1964, a substitute complaint was filed, claiming damages for certain items which could not be found to be replevied. The case was tried on the issues, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff on August 18, 1965. On June 30, 1966, the instant motion for a wage order was filed.

Neither the original replevin writ and complaint, which really is removed from the case upon the filing of the substitute complaint, nor the substitute complaint contains a notice to the defendants that the plaintiff intends to seek satisfaction of any judgment rendered in its favor from any debt accruing to said defendants by reason of their personal services. This omission from the plaintiff’s complaint is fatal to the instant motion. General Statutes § 52-361 (a); Practice Book § 145.

For the foregoing reason, the plaintiff’s motion for a wage order is denied.

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

Wise, J.

The plaintiff instituted this action of replevin by writ and complaint dated October 28, 1964. On November 20, 1964, a substitute complaint was filed, claiming damages for certain items which could not be found to be replevied. The case was tried on the issues, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff on August 18, 1965. On June 30, 1966, the instant motion for a wage order was filed.

Neither the original replevin writ and complaint, which really is removed from the case upon the filing of the substitute complaint, nor the substitute complaint contains a notice to the defendants that the plaintiff intends to seek satisfaction of any judgment rendered in its favor from any debt accruing to said defendants by reason of their personal services. This omission from the plaintiff’s complaint is fatal to the instant motion. General Statutes § 52-361 (a); Practice Book § 145.

For the foregoing reason, the plaintiff’s motion for a wage order is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.2d 512, 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 395, 1966 Conn. Cir. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-sales-corp-v-germano-connappct-1966.