Powell v. the Bodwell Realty Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Powell v. the Bodwell Realty Co.

2 Conn. Super. Ct. 163

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 6, 1935

DocketFile No. 46394

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Conn. Super. Ct. 163 (Powell v. the Bodwell Realty 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

Powell v. the Bodwell Realty Co., 2 Conn. Super. Ct. 163 (Colo. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

It is set up in the complaint that the *Page 164 notes in suit were executed by the president of the defendant corporation "under the seal of the defendant which seal was attached and affixed to said note at said time." The notes have not been set up in the complaint nor have they been made a part of the pleadings by motion.

It is said in Caputo vs. DeLoretto, 110 Conn. 413, quoting from another case, "Whether an instrument is under seal or not is a question for the court upon inspection. . . ."

But it would appear by General Statutes 1930, Sec. 5615, that while where an individual or corporation has no official or corporate seal and executes an instrument, evidence may be introduced that the instrument was intended to be a specialty or under seal, but where a corporate seal is affixed the instrument is "deemed in all respects a sealed instrument."

The demurrer is sustained.

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

It is set up in the complaint that the *Page 164 notes in suit were executed by the president of the defendant corporation "under the seal of the defendant which seal was attached and affixed to said note at said time." The notes have not been set up in the complaint nor have they been made a part of the pleadings by motion.

It is said in Caputo vs. DeLoretto, 110 Conn. 413, quoting from another case, "Whether an instrument is under seal or not is a question for the court upon inspection. . . ."

But it would appear by General Statutes 1930, Sec. 5615, that while where an individual or corporation has no official or corporate seal and executes an instrument, evidence may be introduced that the instrument was intended to be a specialty or under seal, but where a corporate seal is affixed the instrument is "deemed in all respects a sealed instrument."

The demurrer is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Conn. Super. Ct. 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-the-bodwell-realty-co-connsuperct-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack