Knox v. Protection Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This Was & seif e-facias, in a process of foreign attachment, to compel the payment of a sum of money, alleged to be au< from the defendants, an incorporated company, to Hugh Find-ley, an absent and absconding debtor to the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
This Was & seif e-facias, in a process of foreign attachment, to compel the payment of a sum of money, alleged to be au< from the defendants, an incorporated company, to Hugh Find-ley, an absent and absconding debtor to the plaintiffs. The declaration set forth the original suit against Findley, demanding 2500 dollars damages, a copy being left with the present defendants, as his debtors and trustees ; a judgment against him; a demand on the execution made of the defendants ; and concluded, by averring, ‘‘ that said Protection Insurance Company, at the time of leaving the copy of said writ,…
1Opinion of the Court
Daggett, Ch. J.
Two questions have been discussed, by counsel, and are now to be considered and decided.
1. Is the indebtedness of the defendants such as to authorize this proceeding by way of foreign attachment? That they owed, when the copy was left with them, to the absent debtor, in a certain sense, or that they were liable to pay him for a loss which they had insured against, is not denied ; but it is insisted, that this liability does not render them responsible in this suit. In support of this position, they cite the following authorities. Gordon v. Bowne, 2 Johns. Rep. 150. Howlett &…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Brown v. CumingNew York Supreme Court · 1804
- Brumly v. Westchester County Manufacturing SocietyNew York Court of Chancery · 1815
- President of the Union Turnpike Road v. JenkinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
- Byard v. StewartConnecticut Superior Court · 1790