Fearey v. Hotchkiss
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Trespass on the case for fraud in refusing to disclose rights of action with intent to prevent their being taken by foreign attachment; brought by appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court on the general issue before Harrison, J. On the trial the plaintiffs offered evidence to prove that on the 27th day of April, 1877, the defendant was indebted to them in the sum of #69, and that on that day…
Read the full summary
Trespass on the case for fraud in refusing to disclose rights of action with intent to prevent their being taken by foreign attachment; brought by appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court on the general issue before Harrison, J. On the trial the plaintiffs offered evidence to prove that on the 27th day of April, 1877, the defendant was indebted to them in the sum of #69, and that on that day they procured a writ of attachment in the ordinary form, with a factorizing clause annexed in which a blank was left for…
1Opinion of the CourtLoomis, J.
The statute upon which this action is founded makes a debtor liable to an aggrieved creditor if “ he refuses to disclose his rights of action with intent to prevent the *270same from being taken by foreign attachment.” General Statutes, Eevision of 1875, p. 490, sec. 8.
It appears therefore that the essential elements necessary to sustain the action are three; viz.: namely, an act; an accompanying intent; and a resulting injury to the plaintiff.
The act referred to is a refusal by the defendant to disclose his rights of action, and the intent must be to prevent the same from being taken by foreign…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Morrison v. MartinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1911