DocketNumber: File 16746
Citation Numbers: 181 A.2d 452, 23 Conn. Super. Ct. 282, 23 Conn. Supp. 282, 1962 Conn. Super. LEXIS 110
Judges: Meyers
Filed Date: 1/16/1962
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The defendants seek to render ineffective the attachments made in this action on the ground that there was a failure to comply with the statutory requirement of a court order for them. *Page 283
Our legislature seeks neither to fetter nor to preclude the orderly process and progress of causes of action. However, it properly does guard against the abuse of the right of attachment and the sometimes overpowering influence of that right. Comments, 26 Conn. B.J. 89, 97. It has seen fit to establish procedural safeguards in certain areas which are deemed particularly vulnerable in this respect. Among these protective measures is the enactment of what is now §
The first count does not state a cause of action for damages. Involved in the second count is a claim of slander of the plaintiffs' title to property in Bridgewater. It will be observed that in the statute no procedural distinction is made between actions for slander and actions for slander of title. Though our cases do not furnish any specific light on the problem, courts in other jurisdictions go further than merely to find that no difference exists in the actions of these delicts; they press the point that there is no reason for a difference. Old PlantationCorporation v. Maule Industries, Inc.,
Sections