Legal Opinion

Palmer v. Uhl

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 31, 1930PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, J.

The plaintiffs are entitled to judgment unless the defendants have title by reason of the following facts: In 1909 John S. Palmer owned and possessed the land in suit. Two partners by the name of Savage obtained a judgment against him for $119.50 with costs and sometime subsequently filed a judgment lien. In 1913 they brought an action to foreclose this lien, secured judgment against him, and upon his failing to redeem, caused a certificate of foreclosure to be recorded. Although the judgment gave them the right to the possession of the premises they never took any steps to secure it. In 1920…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Millard v. GreenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
  2. Paton v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
  3. Lengyel v. PeregrinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  4. Peck v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Desiderio v. IadonisiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
  2. City Lumber Co. of Bridgeport, Inc. v. MurphySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
  3. Struzinski v. StruzinskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
  4. 1525 Highland Associates, LLC v. FohlConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
  5. Valente v. CostantinoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API