Legal Opinion

Dime Savings Bank v. McAlenney

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 14, 1905Published

Action to recover' damages for the breach of a covenant of warranty, brought to the Superior Court at Waterbury and tried to the jury before Case, J.; verdict for the plaintiff, which the trial court on motion of the defendant set aside as' against the evidence, and appeal by the plaintiff.

1Opinion of the CourtTorrance, C. J.

To understand the questions involved in the present case it is necessary to refer briefly to a former case between the present parties which is reported in 76 Conn. 141. In that report the facts upon which the plaintiff founded its right to recover are sufficiently stated, and need not be repeated in detail here. From those facts it appears that the plaintiff in that case claimed to recover against the estate of Joseph Cassidy, deceased, ripon either of two grounds: (1) upon the note given by Cassidy in his lifetime to the plaintiff, which the complaint alleged had been duly presented against…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Munson v. MunsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1862
  2. Dime Savings Bank v. McAlenneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903

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

Powered by the Exa API