Legal Opinion

Conn. Savings Bk. v. Reilly

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided January 11, 1944No. File No. 64518PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

At common law, the available defenses to a complaint seeking the foreclosure of a mortgage are limited to such things as payment, discharge, release, satisfaction or the invalidity of the lien. Petterson vs. Weinstock,106 Conn. 436, 441. Under no stretch of the imagination can one interpret the legal special defense [alleged abuse of process wrought by excessiveness of attachment with which suit begun] as falling within any of the above classifications. It does not avoid the plaintiff's cause of action and is totally without merit as a defense.

The demurrer is sustained on all grounds.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Petterson v. WeinstockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Commodore Commons Condominium Assn. v. Austin, No. 058025 (Mar. 4, 1999)Connecticut Superior Court · 1999
  2. The Norwich Savings Society v. Hunter, No. 108808 (Apr. 2, 1996)Connecticut Superior Court · 1996
  3. Union Trust v. Hamilton Branford Ltd., No. Cv 91-0325651-S (Aug. 27, 1993)Connecticut Superior Court · 1993
  4. Bristol Sav. Bk. v. Efa Corporation, No. Cv-91-515249 (Oct. 19, 1992)Connecticut Superior Court · 1992
  5. Bristol Sav. Bk. v. Miller's Chevrolet, No. Cv-91-514407 (Oct. 19, 1992)Connecticut Superior Court · 1992

7 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