Smith v. People's Bank, No. Cv93 30 69 08 S (Sep. 28, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Smith v. People's Bank, No. Cv93 30 69 08 S (Sep. 28, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10664

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 28, 1995

DocketNo. CV93 30 69 08 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10664 (Smith v. People's Bank, No. Cv93 30 69 08 S (Sep. 28, 1995)) 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

Smith v. People's Bank, No. Cv93 30 69 08 S (Sep. 28, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10664 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE FROM JURY DOCKET The motion to strike this case from the jury docket is granted. It is apparent from the allegations of the complaint that specific performance of the agreement is the primary relief sought by the plaintiff. "The mere claim of damages does not make the action essentially one at law. . . . The claim of damages herein appears, at best, in lieu of or ancillary to the claims for equitable relief." Dick v. Dick, 167 Conn. 210, 222 (1974). The case is an action in equity. It is not of right triable to a jury. See Burns v. Gould, 172 Conn. 210, 211 n. (1977). Malkan v.CT Page 10665Hemming, 82 Conn. 293 (1909).

THIM, JUDGE

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE FROM JURY DOCKET The motion to strike this case from the jury docket is granted. It is apparent from the allegations of the complaint that specific performance of the agreement is the primary relief sought by the plaintiff. "The mere claim of damages does not make the action essentially one at law. . . . The claim of damages herein appears, at best, in lieu of or ancillary to the claims for equitable relief." Dick v. Dick, 167 Conn. 210, 222 (1974). The case is an action in equity. It is not of right triable to a jury. See Burns v. Gould, 172 Conn. 210, 211 n. (1977). Malkan v.CT Page 10665Hemming, 82 Conn. 293 (1909).

THIM, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-peoples-bank-no-cv93-30-69-08-s-sep-28-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack