Legal Opinion

Pepe v. Santoro

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 13, 1925PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKellogg, J.

The defendants before this court base their appeal chiefly upon the correction of the finding by striking out paragraph thirteen of the finding and substituting certain paragraphs of their draft-finding in lieu thereof, it being clear that if this paragraph remains, it would be difficult for the trial court to arrive at any other decision than it did. This paragraph is as follows: “By making said conveyances, the defendant Julius left himself only a small amount of personal property of little value and wholly insufficient to meet his-then existing obligations, and by making said conveyances…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Allen v. RundleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1882
  2. Paulk v. CookeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1873
  3. Mathews v. ConverseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
  4. Clarke v. BlackSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
  5. O'Neill v. KilduffSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Murphy v. DantowitzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
  2. Doty v. WheelerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
  3. Lehrman v. PragueSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
  4. Dombron v. RogozinskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
  5. Wilcox v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1941

4 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