Hamlin v. Arthur Suzio Contracting Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Hamlin v. Arthur Suzio Contracting Co.

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 507, 8 Conn. Supp. 507, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 166

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1940

DocketFile 60770

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 507 (Hamlin v. Arthur Suzio Contracting Co.) 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

Hamlin v. Arthur Suzio Contracting Co., 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 507, 8 Conn. Supp. 507, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 166 (Colo. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

CORNELL, J.

The motion sets forth in substance that the receiver has been ordered by this court to pay the holders thereof, among others, two claims for wages, but that suits have been instituted against the persons entitled to receive •such payments and incidentally thereto the receiver has been garnisheed. The receiver seeks advice as to whether such *508 garnishments are valid and whether despite such proceedings he may rightfully pay such claims to the persons filing the same.

The court is unable to give the advice requested in view of the meagre statement of fact. Among other circumstances to which the receiver may think it proper to call attention, it will be necessary to know: (1) the date of the order of court authorizing and directing the payment, and that when garnishee process was served upon the receiver; (2) whether any application had been made to the court prior to the making of the-garnishment for permission to garnishee funds belonging to-such corporate creditors and if so the date of the order made by the court and its purport; (3) whether prior to the service of such garnishment process upon him the receiver had disbursed the whole or any part of such payments to the holders of the claims in question and if so the amount of such disbursement and the date thereof and (4) what amounts, if any, the receiver has in his hands owing to such creditors payable to each under the order of the court. Certain of this information might be gleaned from the file upon examination of the latter, but it should appear in the application.

It is suggested that a substitute motion be filed stating these and any other facts of which the receiver may have cognizance or knowledge. Disposition of the pending motion is deferred ad interim.

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

CORNELL, J.

The motion sets forth in substance that the receiver has been ordered by this court to pay the holders thereof, among others, two claims for wages, but that suits have been instituted against the persons entitled to receive •such payments and incidentally thereto the receiver has been garnisheed. The receiver seeks advice as to whether such *508 garnishments are valid and whether despite such proceedings he may rightfully pay such claims to the persons filing the same.

The court is unable to give the advice requested in view of the meagre statement of fact. Among other circumstances to which the receiver may think it proper to call attention, it will be necessary to know: (1) the date of the order of court authorizing and directing the payment, and that when garnishee process was served upon the receiver; (2) whether any application had been made to the court prior to the making of the-garnishment for permission to garnishee funds belonging to-such corporate creditors and if so the date of the order made by the court and its purport; (3) whether prior to the service of such garnishment process upon him the receiver had disbursed the whole or any part of such payments to the holders of the claims in question and if so the amount of such disbursement and the date thereof and (4) what amounts, if any, the receiver has in his hands owing to such creditors payable to each under the order of the court. Certain of this information might be gleaned from the file upon examination of the latter, but it should appear in the application.

It is suggested that a substitute motion be filed stating these and any other facts of which the receiver may have cognizance or knowledge. Disposition of the pending motion is deferred ad interim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 507, 8 Conn. Supp. 507, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamlin-v-arthur-suzio-contracting-co-connsuperct-1940.