Appeal of Bridgeport Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 20 April 1905
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Appeal of BRIDGEPORT TRUST CO.

60 A. 662

77 Conn. 657

Appeal of BRIDGEPORT TRUST CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 20, 1905.

Case Reserved from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Silas A. Robinson, Judge.

Application by Henry H. Gallup, Treasurer of the state of Connecticut, to the court of probate for an order directing the Bridgeport Trust Company, administrator of the estate of George F. Gilman, deceased, to file an inventory of the estate, to include all the decedent's personal property, wherever situated. From an order granting the application the administrator appealed to the superior court. On an agreed statement of facts the case was reserved for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. Affirmance of probate order advised.

On March 3, 1901, George F. Gilman, a resident of Bridgeport and domiciled in Connecticut, died intestate. On March 19, 1901 the appellant was duly appointed administrator by the court of probate for the district of Bridgeport. On May 24, 1901, the administrator returned a partial inventory and appraisal, containing only certain personal property located in Connecticut. This partial inventory and appraisal was accepted. On June 17, 1901, the administrator returned a further partial inventory and appraisal, containing only all the real estate situated in Connecticut. This partial inventory and appraisal was accepted. On October 2, 1903, the administrator returned a supplemental inventory, showing the following additional items of personal property, namely, a claim against George H. Hartford, of Orange, N. J., as surviving partner of the partnership comprised of said deceased and said Hartford, under the name of "The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company," and a claim against George W. Smith, as surviving partner of a partnership known as "The Village Store Company," and stating that the valuation of the real estate inventoried should be increased. The supplemental inventory was not accompanied by any appraisal, and does not appear to have been accepted, and no copy of it was sent to the State Treasurer, as required by statute in the case of the return and acceptance of an inventory. On October 1, 1904, the court of probate, upon application of the state and Henry H. Gallup, its treasurer, passed an order directing the administrator to file an inventory of the estate of the deceased, which should include all the personal property and choses in action belonging to the intestate at the time of his death, wherever situated. The administrator appealed from this order to the superior court. No reasons of appeal were filed, but the parties agreed upon a statement of facts and stipulated that the issue before the superior court should be framed as follows: Assuming the facts agreed upon to be proved, do they furnish a legal ground for setting aside or modifying the order of the court of probate? Thereupon, and by further agreement of the parties, the superior court found the facts to be as set forth in the agreed statement, and reserved the cause for the advice of this court as to what judgment should be rendered. The facts found, so far as they may be material to the Judgment to be rendered, are as follows:

At the time of Gilman's death he owned property, consisting of real and personal property, both in this state and New York state, and of personal property in other states. His next of kin comprised descendants of brothers and sisters of the whole blood and brothers and sisters of the half blood. By the law of this state the next of kin of the whole blood would take all the personal property. By the law of New York they would take this property equally per stirpes with the next of kin of the half blood. Theophilus Gilman, a brother of the half blood, applied to the surrogate's court in New York for letters of administration, alleging the intestate to have been at his death a resident of New York; and Edward L. Norton, one of said full bloods, also applied for administration, alleging the intestate to have died a resident of Connecticut. On March 11, 1901, eight days before the grant of administration in this state, the surrogate's court granted letters of administration to both applicants, leaving the question of residence and consequent...