Marmac Distributors v. Hartford Pharmacy, No. Cv93 704167s (Oct. 1, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Marmac Distributors v. Hartford Pharmacy, No. Cv93 704167s (Oct. 1, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8216-II, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 1096

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 1, 1993

DocketNo. CV93 704167S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8216-II (Marmac Distributors v. Hartford Pharmacy, No. Cv93 704167s (Oct. 1, 1993)) 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

Marmac Distributors v. Hartford Pharmacy, No. Cv93 704167s (Oct. 1, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8216-II, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 1096 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE INTERPLEADER AND CONTEMPT The plaintiff was granted a prejudgment remedy of garnishment of certain funds that the State of Connecticut (State) owed the defendant. That garnishment was properly served on the State. It is now alleged that in violation of that order of garnishment the State paid those funds to defendant. As a result plaintiff seeks to have this court hold the State in contempt. plaintiff here seeks an order of interpleader under Conn. Gen. Stats. 52-584. The State resists on the basis of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Law

Conn. Gen. Stats. 52-584 reads as follows: "Whenever any person has, or is alleged to have any money. . . in his possession which is claimed by two or more persons, either he, or any of the persons claiming the same, may bring a complaint in equity, in the nature of a bill of interpleader, to any court which by law has equitable jurisdiction of the parties and amount in controversy, making all persons parties who claim to be entitled to or interested in such money CT Page 8216-KK or other property.

The State incurred the debt now represented by the claimed The fund. The State is holding the fund in its own capacity. The State seeks to pay the fund to the creditor to honor debt of the State. All of those actions are part of the State's exercise of its governmental functions. The State is not, here enforcing or supporting some private right of a private party as in The State ex rel Eliott v. Lake Torpedo Boat Co., 90 Conn. 638, 644. The doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to the State's actions here. Struckman v. Burns,205 Conn. 549. There is no waiver of that immunity.

The garnishment is void.

The application for interpleader is denied.

O'Neill, J. CT Page 8216-LL

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE INTERPLEADER AND CONTEMPT The plaintiff was granted a prejudgment remedy of garnishment of certain funds that the State of Connecticut (State) owed the defendant. That garnishment was properly served on the State. It is now alleged that in violation of that order of garnishment the State paid those funds to defendant. As a result plaintiff seeks to have this court hold the State in contempt. plaintiff here seeks an order of interpleader under Conn. Gen. Stats. 52-584. The State resists on the basis of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Law

Conn. Gen. Stats. 52-584 reads as follows: "Whenever any person has, or is alleged to have any money. . . in his possession which is claimed by two or more persons, either he, or any of the persons claiming the same, may bring a complaint in equity, in the nature of a bill of interpleader, to any court which by law has equitable jurisdiction of the parties and amount in controversy, making all persons parties who claim to be entitled to or interested in such money CT Page 8216-KK or other property.

The State incurred the debt now represented by the claimed The fund. The State is holding the fund in its own capacity. The State seeks to pay the fund to the creditor to honor debt of the State. All of those actions are part of the State's exercise of its governmental functions. The State is not, here enforcing or supporting some private right of a private party as in The State ex rel Eliott v. Lake Torpedo Boat Co., 90 Conn. 638, 644. The doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to the State's actions here. Struckman v. Burns,205 Conn. 549. There is no waiver of that immunity.

The garnishment is void.

The application for interpleader is denied.

O'Neill, J. CT Page 8216-LL

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8216-II, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 1096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marmac-distributors-v-hartford-pharmacy-no-cv93-704167s-oct-1-1993-connsuperct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack