Massa v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Massa v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.

12 Conn. Supp. 324, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 10

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 7, 1944

DocketFile No. 64582

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Conn. Supp. 324 (Massa v. Union & New Haven Trust 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

Massa v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 12 Conn. Supp. 324, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 10 (Colo. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

WYNNE, J.

This suit is against the defendant acting as a fiduciary .This circumstance and the very patent multiplicity of its activities as such, are cogent reasons why the defendant is entitled to be more fully apprised of the basis of the plaintiff’s claim than is set forth in the complaint.

It is not evidential matter the defendant seeks, but rather day and date of claimed business contacts; the identity of claimed representatives; and what was the undertaking that the plaintiff assumed and claims to have successfully concluded.

Certainly the defendant cannot plead with adequacy to the [325]*325present complaint. There may be legal questions lurking in whatever may be unfolded. It would be worse than to buy a pig in a poke for the defendant to join issue on the complaint as it stands.

The motion is therefore granted in its entirety.

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

WYNNE, J.

This suit is against the defendant acting as a fiduciary .This circumstance and the very patent multiplicity of its activities as such, are cogent reasons why the defendant is entitled to be more fully apprised of the basis of the plaintiff’s claim than is set forth in the complaint.

It is not evidential matter the defendant seeks, but rather day and date of claimed business contacts; the identity of claimed representatives; and what was the undertaking that the plaintiff assumed and claims to have successfully concluded.

Certainly the defendant cannot plead with adequacy to the [325]*325present complaint. There may be legal questions lurking in whatever may be unfolded. It would be worse than to buy a pig in a poke for the defendant to join issue on the complaint as it stands.

The motion is therefore granted in its entirety.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Conn. Supp. 324, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massa-v-union-new-haven-trust-co-connsuperct-1944.