Appeal of Buckingham
| Decision Date | 30 June 1889 |
| Citation | 18 A. 256,57 Conn. 544 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Appeal of BUCKINGHAM. |
Appeal from superior court, Hartford county.
J. H. McMahon, for appellant. T. E. Doolittle and W. B. Stoddard, for appellees.
On April 16, 1887, the probate court within and for the district of Hartford approved a writing executed on November 11, 1881, as the last will of Irene Clark, and ordered the same to be recorded. On April 5, 1888, the appellant exhibited to the same court another writing, purporting to be the last will of the said Irene Clark, executed on November 17, 1879, in which the appellant was made one of the legatees, and of which she was named one of the executors. On this last-named day she took this appeal to the superior court from the order of the probate court approving the will of 1881, assigning for reasons that the testatrix was of unsound mind and under undue influence at the time of executing it. The appellees moved the superior court to erase the appeal from the docket, for the reason that it did not appear of record that the appellant had such an interest in the estate as would entitle her to take such an appeal. The superior court ordered it erased. The appellant appeals to this court.
The statute gives the right of appeal from any decree of the probate court to any person who will suffer pecuniary injury therefrom. In the appellant's motion to the probate court, asking for leave to take the appeal, which motion is in writing and is incorporated in her appeal, she sets out that, although she is a legatee under the will of 1881, yet she is the legatee of a much larger amount under that of 1879; that the latter is in fact the last will of the testatrix; and that she will lose a large sum of money if the decree approving the will of 1881 is allowed to stand. It is true the appellant did not—could not— make it absolutely certain to the superior court that she would thereby suffer pecuniary loss. Possibly proof may be made that the will of 1879 was executed by the testatrix when of unsound mind, or under undue influence; possibly a third will may be offered for probate. No more can a son, even, when taking an appeal from the probate of a will executed by the father, giving his estate to strangers, make it certain that the decree of probate has worked a pecuniary injury to him. Possibly another will may be discovered, giving the estate to other strangers. But his right to appeal must not be questioned. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford Kosher Caterers, Inc. v. Gazda
...interest which he has . . . has been adversely affected.' O'Leary v. McGuinness, supra, 140 Conn. 83, 98 A.2d 662; Buckingham's Appeal, 57 Conn. 544, 545-546, 18 A. 256; 1 Locke & Kohn, op. cit., pp. 384-85. For the purposes of § 45-288, Hartford Kosher's allegations showed aggrievement und......
-
Zempsky's Appeal From Probate, 3440
...v. Todd, 38 Conn. 443, 445 [1871]. A legatee under an earlier will may appeal from the admission of a later one. Buckingham's Appeal, 57 Conn. 544, 545, 18 A. 256 [1889]; Spencer's Appeal, supra, 122 Conn. at 333, 188 A. 881. For this reason, even in jurisdictions which hold that an executo......
-
Kennedy v. Walcutt
...if the instrument admitted to probate is a valid will." See, also, In re Estate of Langley, 140 Cal. 126, 73 P. 824; Buckingham's Appeal, 57 Conn. 544, 18 A. 256; v. Neal, 142 Ga. 352, 82 S. E., 1065; McDonald v. McDonald, 142 Ind. 55, 41 N. E., 336; Turhune v. Brookfield, 5 Redf. Sur. (N. ......
-
In re Hunt's Will
...recognition of such an appellant as an aggrieved party have received the sanction of some courts of high standing. Buckingham's Appeal, 57 Conn. 544, 18 Atl. 256;Morey v. Sohier, 63 N. H. 507, 3 Atl. 636, 56 Am. Rep. 538;McDonald v. McDonald, 142 Ind. 55, 41 N. E. 336. Upon due reflection w......