Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 926 — Statute of Limitations
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-588 (2026)

Suit on note obtained by fraud

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No action shall be brought on a negotiable note, if the holder thereof has been notified in writing by the maker thereof, or his attorney or agent, that such note was obtained of the maker in pursuance of a conspiracy, or of a general intent to defraud, unless the same is brought within one year after such notice was given, or six months after such note became due; nor shall any claim on such note be maintained against the estate of any deceased person or insolvent debtor, unless such claim is presented within the time above specified after notice as aforesaid. If any such note is negotiated after it is due, the provisions of this section shall be held to apply to any action or proceeding founded upon such note in as full a manner as if the plaintiff had been the holder of such note at the time when such notice was given.

(1949 Rev., S. 8328.)

Cited. 189 C. 401; 214 C. 464; 233 C. 304.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1983–2020 · leading case: Pacelli Bros. Transp., Inc. v. Pacelli, 456 A.2d 325 (Conn. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pacelli Bros. Transp., Inc. v. Pacelli, 456 A.2d 325 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 5× “The plaintiffs rely upon General Statutes § 52-588 which provides that “[n]o action shall he brought on a negotiable note, if the holder thereof has been notified in writing by the maker thereof, or his attorney or agent, that such note was obtained of the maker in pursuance of…”
Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Giacomi, 659 A.2d 1166 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 2× “partners of Great Rings; (2) that CNB aided and abetted the fraud of the general partners; (3) that the promissory note was procured by fraud; (4) that CNB’s conduct renders the promissory note rescindable; (5) that CNB’s conduct violated General Statutes § 36-485 of CUSA; (6)…”
Vill. Mortg. Co. v. Garbus, 244 A.3d 952 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “Important documentary evidence is unavailable, has been wrongfully withheld or has been destroyed.”
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.