Kistler v. Salisbury

Connecticut Superior Court

Kistler v. Salisbury

15 Conn. Super. Ct. 270

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 13, 1948

DocketFile No. 70645

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Conn. Super. Ct. 270 (Kistler v. Salisbury) 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

Kistler v. Salisbury, 15 Conn. Super. Ct. 270 (Colo. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

While at first blush it appeared that the attachment in the Kistler case (No. 70,645) was excessive, it now appears that a large attachment by the wife of the same defendant in another action (Salisbury v. Salisbury, March, 1948) adds such further complication as possibly to impair his final solvency. Certainly the court is not justified under the circumstances in concluding that there is any abuse of the important privilege bestowed upon members of the bar in making attachments. But of equal importance, perhaps, is the practical difficulty of determining in what way the two plaintiffs could be protected other than by the frequent expedient of arranging bonds or giving suitable assignments. The bank itself is in no way prejudiced in its duties, even though perhaps nettled by the attachments.

The motions in both cases are therefore denied. Memorandums are enclosed for each file.

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

While at first blush it appeared that the attachment in the Kistler case (No. 70,645) was excessive, it now appears that a large attachment by the wife of the same defendant in another action (Salisbury v. Salisbury, March, 1948) adds such further complication as possibly to impair his final solvency. Certainly the court is not justified under the circumstances in concluding that there is any abuse of the important privilege bestowed upon members of the bar in making attachments. But of equal importance, perhaps, is the practical difficulty of determining in what way the two plaintiffs could be protected other than by the frequent expedient of arranging bonds or giving suitable assignments. The bank itself is in no way prejudiced in its duties, even though perhaps nettled by the attachments.

The motions in both cases are therefore denied. Memorandums are enclosed for each file.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Conn. Super. Ct. 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kistler-v-salisbury-connsuperct-1948.