Meyers v. C. I. T. Corp.

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Meyers v. C. I. T. Corp.

12 Conn. Supp. 207, 1943 Conn. Super. LEXIS 87

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

DecidedOctober 14, 1943

DocketFile No. 34448

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Conn. Supp. 207 (Meyers v. C. I. T. Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meyers v. C. I. T. Corp., 12 Conn. Supp. 207, 1943 Conn. Super. LEXIS 87 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

CULLINAN, J.

This action has its roots in a replevin action instituted by C. I. T. Corporation against George Meyers and Edward O’Brien (present plaintiffs) wherein was replevied a motor vehicle. Accompanying the writ in the replevin action was the customary replevin bond executed by C. I. T. Corporation, as principal, and National Surety Corporation, as surety (both corporations being present defendants), wherein they bound themselves to Meyers and O’Brien to pay such judgment as might be rendered, to return the replevied automobile, and to pay to Meyers and O’Brien all damage sustained by the replevying of the vehicle should C. I. T: Corporation fail to establish its right to the possession of the same.

Ultimately the issues were resolved for Meyers and O’Brien, in as much as judgment was rendered in their favor upon the complaint and upon a counterclaim adjudging them to be entitled to possession of the replevied personalty,

In this suit on the replevin bond it is alleged that the defendants have failed to return the motor vehicle and they are further asked “to pay to the plaintiffs the damages sustained by the replevying thereof.” To this latter allegation the defendants have addressed their motion for more specific statement, requesting the plaintiffs to set forth, with particularity, the damages allegedly sustained by the replevy of the personal property.

The defendants are entitled to know the nature of the claim of the plaintiffs. While the broad allegation concerning damages sufficiently alleges a cause of action, nevertheless, the defendants are not barred from seeking amplification. One of the expressed purposes of the statute (Gen. Stat. [1930] §5-513) is to provide for “fuller and more particular statements.” Zaparyniuk et al. vs. Comcowich, 9 Conn. Sup. 523; Berenda vs. St. Peter’s and Paul’s Greek Catholic Church, id. 537:

Motion granted, to be complied with within two weeks from date.

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

CULLINAN, J.

This action has its roots in a replevin action instituted by C. I. T. Corporation against George Meyers and Edward O’Brien (present plaintiffs) wherein was replevied a motor vehicle. Accompanying the writ in the replevin action was the customary replevin bond executed by C. I. T. Corporation, as principal, and National Surety Corporation, as surety (both corporations being present defendants), wherein they bound themselves to Meyers and O’Brien to pay such judgment as might be rendered, to return the replevied automobile, and to pay to Meyers and O’Brien all damage sustained by the replevying of the vehicle should C. I. T: Corporation fail to establish its right to the possession of the same.

Ultimately the issues were resolved for Meyers and O’Brien, in as much as judgment was rendered in their favor upon the complaint and upon a counterclaim adjudging them to be entitled to possession of the replevied personalty,

In this suit on the replevin bond it is alleged that the defendants have failed to return the motor vehicle and they are further asked “to pay to the plaintiffs the damages sustained by the replevying thereof.” To this latter allegation the defendants have addressed their motion for more specific statement, requesting the plaintiffs to set forth, with particularity, the damages allegedly sustained by the replevy of the personal property.

The defendants are entitled to know the nature of the claim of the plaintiffs. While the broad allegation concerning damages sufficiently alleges a cause of action, nevertheless, the defendants are not barred from seeking amplification. One of the expressed purposes of the statute (Gen. Stat. [1930] §5-513) is to provide for “fuller and more particular statements.” Zaparyniuk et al. vs. Comcowich, 9 Conn. Sup. 523; Berenda vs. St. Peter’s and Paul’s Greek Catholic Church, id. 537:

Motion granted, to be complied with within two weeks from date.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Conn. Supp. 207, 1943 Conn. Super. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyers-v-c-i-t-corp-pactcompl-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack