Anderson v. Watson
| Decision Date | 19 January 1972 |
| Citation | 294 A.2d 278,162 Conn. 245 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Harper G. R. ANDERSON et al. v. A. Dudley WATSON et al. |
Sebastian J. Russo, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).
William B. Fitzgerald, Waterbury, with whom were Anthony M. Fitzgerald, Waterbury, and Thomas H. Cotter, Bridgeport, for appellee (named defendant).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and THIM, RYAN, SHAPIRO and LOISELLE, JJ.
This action was brought by Harper G. R. Anderson, hereinafter called Anderson, and Gertrude R. Kunkle, hereinafter called Kunkle, both of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to the Superior Court by writ dated December 10, 1965, against A. Dudley Watson, hereinafter referred to as Watson, and Edward J. Quinlan, Jr., both attorneys and who, prior to the date of this suit, had been the executors under the will of Irene H. Ross. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that on application of the defendants dated December 1, 1961, the decedent's will was admitted to probate on December 12, 1961, by the Probate Court for the district of Winchester; that Watson, 'by fraud, prevented the plaintiffs from contesting the admission of the decedent's Will to probate' and that since the plaintiffs, as heirs-at-law, had grounds for belief that the decedent did not possess testamentary capacity, they were damaged thereby. On December 16, 1966, a summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant Edward J. Quinlan, Jr., from which the plaintiffs did not appeal. On October 25, 1966, the complaint was amended and the allegation that Watson had acted fraudulently was replaced by the claim that he had prevented the plaintiffs from contesting the admission of the will 'by his negligence.' In their prayer for relief the plaintiffs claimed damages and, by way of equitable relief, '(t)hat the Superior Court adjudge and declare said Will null and void as an imposition upon the Probate Court of the District of Winchester and the plaintiffs, and that the Superior Court command the Probate Court of Winchester from hence-forth entertaining any proceedings whatever, regarding said claimed Will, or of the estate of Irene Herbert Ross deceased, or any claim or motion of the defendants, or either or any of them regarding said claimed Will.' After various motions had been made to the Superior Court and were ruled on by it, Watson, on February 3, 1969, answered the complaint by denying, inter alia, that he prevented the plaintiffs from contesting the admission of the will or that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity. Also, by way of special defense, he pleaded the Statute of Limitations and laches. This was denied by the plaintiffs.
On October 28, 1970, Watson filed a motion for summary judgment which was accompanied by affidavits and other documentary evidence. Among his claims were these: that the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations; that part of the equitable relief sought was beyond the jurisdiction of the Superior Court; and that, as to the remainder of the equitable relief sought, the case was moot. The plaintiffs filed counter-affidavits which showed, inter alia, that they were first cousins once removed of the decedent; that Anderson on November 26, 1962, and Kunkle through Anderson in December, 1962, were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klock v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb Inc., 83 Civ. 3889 (RJW).
...or in the performance of professional services, is also three years. See Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-577 (1975); Anderson v. Watson, 162 Conn. 245, 294 A.2d 278 (1972) (negligence); Nickerson v. Martin, 34 Conn.Sup. 22, 374 A.2d 258 (1976) (legal malpractice). However, the law of the forum state, N......
-
Hogle v. Hogle
...of any material fact and that Aetna was entitled to judgment. It acted correctly in granting summary judgment. See Anderson v. Watson, 162 Conn. 245, 248, 294 A.2d 278; Dougherty v. Graham, 161 Conn. 248, 250, 287 A.2d There is no error. In this opinion the other Judges concurred. 1 Moreove......
-
Nickerson v. Martin
...to architects and professional engineers, no limitation applies to a legal malpractice action does not hold water. In Anderson v. Watson, 162 Conn. 245, 294 A.2d 278, a comparable situation was presented in that the defendant Watson, an attorney, had been appointed as executor under a will.......
-
Hilton of San Juan, Inc. v. Lateano
...as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book § 303; Anderson v. Watson, 162 Conn. 245, 248, 294 A.2d 278; First Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Deane, 29 Conn.Sup. 505, 506, 294 A.2d 84. The defendant relies on Ciampittiello v. ......