Investor's Mortgage Guarantee Co. v. De Gaemo
2 Conn. Super. Ct. 63
Opinion
Among the other pre requisites prescribed for the entering of a Summary Judgment is that the affidavit contain a statement to the effect that the affiant believe there is no defense to the action. Practice Book, #53.
There is not such a statement in the affidavit accompanying the motion in this instance.
Under the circumstances here, would not a judgment by default be in order? See Practice Books #47 and #187.
The instant motion is denied for the reason stated, supra.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Investor's Mortgage Guarantee Co. v. De Gaemo, 2 Conn. Super. Ct. 63 (Colo. Ct. App. 1935).
2 Conn. Super. Ct. 63 (Investor's Mortgage Guarantee Co. v. De Gaemo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cohn v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., No. 31 97 69 (Oct. 31, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 12192 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
City of Milford v. Andresakis, No. Cv94 04 71 24s (Oct. 31, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 12183 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Hratko v. Bethel Board of Education, No. 31 78 36 (Mar. 7, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2408 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Szymanski v. Hartford Hospital, No. 363831 (Jan. 2, 1990)
1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 30 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1990)