Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-307 (2026)

Amount of attachment bond or substitute lien; hearing as to sufficiency

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All persons interested may be heard in relation to the amount and sufficiency of the bond or the substitute lien offered by the defendant. Such amount shall equal the value of the estate which the process directed to be attached, unless the action is founded in tort for the recovery of unliquidated damages, and it appears to the authority to whom the application is made that the amount so required to be attached is excessive, in which case he may take a bond or substitute lien for such sum as he deems reasonable.

(1949 Rev., S. 8046; 1971, P.A. 39, S. 4.)

History: 1971 act added reference to substitute liens.

Cited. 130 C. 514; 178 C. 250; 200 C. 406; 209 C. 15.

Cited. 5 CA 142.

“And” following “damages” is intended to refer to unliquidated damages and to provide for a reduction if they are excessive. 12 CS 102.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1979–1986 · leading case: Glanz v. Testa, 511 A.2d 341 (Conn. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Glanz v. Testa, 511 A.2d 341 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 2× “Further, under General Statutes § 52-307 “[a]ll persons interested may be heard in relation to the amount and sufficiency of the bond or substitute lien offered by the defendant.”

Brainard v. Smyth Mfg. Co., 423 A.2d 881 (Conn. 1979). “” The trial court, in substituting other property of the defendants, properly followed § 52-304 and also § 52-307 which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] 11 persons interested may be heard in relation to the amount and sufficiency of the bond or the substitute lien offered…”

Wu v. Moody, 497 A.2d 89 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). “and § 52-307 in regard to attachment bonds.” This basis for the decision was changed “by correcting the basis for the decision to holding the money under section 52-502, because the thought is the same.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.