46 Conn. 230 (Conn. 1878), Appeal of Watertown Ecclesiastical Soc.
|Citation:||46 Conn. 230|
|Opinion Judge:||Pardee, J.|
|Party Name:||Watertown Ecclesiastical Society's Appeal from Probate.|
|Attorney:||H. B. Graves and E. W. Seymour, in support of the motions. C. B. Andrews and A. P. Bradstreet, contra.|
|Judge Panel:||In this opinion the other judges concurred.|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Connecticut|
The verdict of a jury in a civil case is not complete until it has been read to them, and they have assented to it as read.
A written verdict for the plaintiff was for " sixteen and seventy-four dollars." The clerk read it as " sixteen hundred and seventy-four dollars," and as such it was accepted by the court and ordered to be recorded. It was then in the same manner read again to the jury by the clerk, who said to them after reading it, " This is your verdict; so say you all; " to which they all assented. Held that the real verdict was the verdict as read and assented to, and not the verdict as written.
D, a sister of O, rendered services for him relying upon his promise to make provision for her by his will. He provided by his will that she should receive such sum, from time to time, as in the opinion of his executors should be necessary for her comfortable support. Upon a claim made by her against his estate for the services, the court charged the jury that if O had promised to make compensation for the services in his will and the services were rendered, it was for them to say whether the gift by the will was a sufficient compensation. Held, upon motion of the adverse party for a new trial, to be no error.
D testified that O, several years before his death, had said to her that he could not then pay for her services, but would make provision for payment in his will; and that on being asked by her a few days before his death as to how she was to get her pay, he told her that he had bequeathed his property to her. The adverse party asked the court to instruct the jury as matter of law that this declaration was insufficient to remove the bar of the statute of limitations. The court charged that the jury might consider it, and if from it they found that O promised to pay in that mode for the services of D, her claim was relieved from the operation of the statute. Held to be no error.
Appeal from the doings of commissioners on the estate of Orlando Fenn, in allowing a claim of Delia Fenn against the estate; brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County, and tried to the jury before Sanford, J. Verdict for the appellee, and motion for a new trial by the appellants. There was also a motion in arrest of judgment, which the court overruled, and which was brought before this court by a motion in error. The case is fully stated in the opinion.
Orlando Fenn died in 1876, leaving a will by which he devised his entire estate to the First Ecclesiastical Society and Church in Watertown, upon condition that his executors should take possesion of, hold, manage and control it during the life of his sister, Delia Fenn, and pay to her so much thereof as she should, in their judgment, at any time need for her comfortable and proper support, and at her decease pay over whatever remained to said society. The executors represented the estate to be insolvent, and commissioners were...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP