Carrington v. Holabird
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a bill in chancery. For a statement of the allegations in the bill and the prayer for relief, see 17 Conn. R. 531. The original decree dismissing the bill having been reversed, by the decision of this court, there was a new hearing of the cause before the superior court, at Litchfield, February term 1848 ; when the following facts were found.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery. For a statement of the allegations in the bill and the prayer for relief, see 17 Conn. R. 531. The original decree dismissing the bill having been reversed, by the decision of this court, there was a new hearing of the cause before the superior court, at Litchfield, February term 1848 ; when the following facts were found. Holabird, the defendant in this suit, instituted three actions in his favour against Carrington and Lee, as alleged in the plaintiff’s bill; which were continued in the superior court, from term to term, until the third Tuesday of August 1842 ;…
1Opinion of the Court
Church, Ch. I.
When this case was before us on a former occasion, (17 Conn. R. 531.) we supposed that the general principles upon which the respective claims of these parties depended, were settled. But it appearing, upon a new trial of the cause, that Mr. Holabird was not insolvent, and that the allegation of his insolvency in the plaintiff’s bill, was wholly disproved ; he now claims, that no foundation is laid for this proceeding against him in chancery; but that the remedy of the plaintiff, if any, can be found only at law, under the provisions of the 68th section of our statute for the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Folwell v. HowellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Black v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- Smith v. HallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Leigh v. ArmorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
- Town of East Hartford v. MillerConnecticut Superior Court · 1968
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.