Loeb v. Luddy

4 Conn. Super. Ct. 439, 4 Conn. Supp. 439, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 22
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedFebruary 17, 1937
DocketFile #51758
StatusPublished

This text of 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 439 (Loeb v. Luddy) 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
Loeb v. Luddy, 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 439, 4 Conn. Supp. 439, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 22 (Colo. Ct. App. 1937).

Opinion

SIMPSON, J.

This is not a motion to dissolve a foreign attachment because it is excessive or one to substitute a bond therefor. But “to dissolve” an attachment because the money attached or garnisheed in the hands of The Stamford Trust Company does not belong to the defendant or either one of them. The principles of law stated in the case of Sachs vs. Nussenbaum, et al, 92 Conn. 682, does not therefore apply.

While the Court is of the opinion the defendant might properly apply to the Court for redress it is also of the opinion a motion to dissolve was not the proper procedure. It should have been by way of a petition asking for equitable relief. However as the parties have been fully heard, the Court feels that the matter ought to be determined without further procedure.

From the evidence offered it is found that the funds,, amounting to $363.50, deposited by the defendant Richard Luddy in the Stamford Trust Co. in the name of “Richard Luddy, Special” belong to the Connecticut Life Insurance Company except to the amount of $18.18 due the defendant as commission therefrom.

It is therefore ordered that the plaintiffs release from said garnishment the sum of $345.32 deposited in The Stamford Trust Company under the title “Richard Luddy, Special”, and that if this is not done within ten days from the date hereof, the garnishment to the extent of $345.32 be and hereby is-dissolved.

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

Related

Sachs v. Nussenbaum
104 A. 393 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Conn. Super. Ct. 439, 4 Conn. Supp. 439, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loeb-v-luddy-connsuperct-1937.