Legal Opinion
Trachten v. Boyarsky
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 4, 1937PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
In addition to recovery upon a note for $1862.70 of the defendants Jacob and Sarah Boyarsky to the plaintiff, as to which judgment was rendered in his favor, the plaintiff claimed, by way of equitable relief, reconveyance of certain property alleged by him to have been fraudulently conveyed by these defend ants. His appeal relates to the denial of this relief. The note, which was dated September 7th, 1935, was given to cover a balance due from the Boyarskys to the plaintiff upon items, set forth on the back of the note, consisting of four notes of $300 each, one note of $1060, .and another…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- American Surety Co. of NY v. MarottaSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Choteau v. JonesIllinois Supreme Court · 1849
- State v. WadeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Williams v. BanksCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1857
- Doyle v. ReevesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- McWilliams v. American Fidelity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Bank of the Wichitas v. LedfordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
- Coan v. Andersen (In Re Andersen)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · 1994
- Rogers v. MarchantCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1937
- Haley v. Marketing Corporation, No. Cv92 0128067 S (Jun. 17, 1993)Connecticut Superior Court · 1993