Legal Opinion

Hayes v. Weisman

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided April 25, 1922PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

The court held, upon the foregoing facts, that the plaintiff, although he had recovered judgment against Musnitsky, was barred a recovery against either defendant under his supplemental garnishment of them, if either of them was indebted to him when service was made, because the plaintiff failed to take out execution and have demand duly made upon them within sixty days after the legal stay of execution caused by the notice of appeal had ceased. The court so held, under its construction of General Statutes, § 5914. This statute, in so far as applicable, reads as follows: “No estate which has…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Fitch v. WaiteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Burchett v. RoncariSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  2. Mac's Car City, Inc. v. DiLoretoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  3. Jepsen v. Toni Co.Connecticut Superior Court · 1957
  4. Quinlan v. City National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  5. New York Plumbers Specialty Co. v. WerebitzikSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926

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