Appeal of Corr

• Decision Date: 10 December 1892
• Citation: 62 Conn. 403,26 A. 478
• Parties: APPEAL OF CORR.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

26 A. 478

62 Conn. 403

APPEAL OF CORR.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 10, 1892.

Appeal from superior court, Litchfield county; Robinson, Judge.

Timothy Keefe presented a claim to the commissioners on the estate of Ellen Keefe, his wife, which was allowed. On appeal by Joseph Corr to the superior court, where there was verdict and judgment for the same amount. Corr again appeals. Affirmed.

C. G. Root, for appellant.

S. A. Herman, for appellee.

ANDREWS, C. J. This is an appeal from the doings of the commissioners on the estate of Ellen Keefe, late of Plymouth, in allowing a claim in favor of Timothy Keefe to the amount of $1,700. The cause was tried by a jury in the superior court, who returned a verdict for the same amount in favor of the appellee. The facts which appeared upon the trial and which are found by the verdict are, briefly, these: Timothy Keefe and Ellen Keefe were married April 5, 1853, and always lived together as husband and wife until her death. They never had any children. In 1871, Timothy bought a house and lot in Plymouth, and paid therefor with his own money the sum of $1,700. The deed was taken in the name of Ellen Keefe, upon an agreement then made between Ellen and Timothy that she would execute such papers as were necessary to convey the title to him whenever he should request her to do so. During her whole life Ellen recognized and admitted the ownership of the land by Timothy and her promise to convey to him. Three or four years before her death, Timothy spoke to her about making the necessary papers to place the title in him. A few weeks before her death he spoke to her again, and she promised to execute the same as soon as she was able to go to a place where such paper could be prepared. At that time it was stated and agreed between her and her husband that, if she died without having executed such papers as would place the real estate in his name, he should be paid the sum of $1,700 out of the estate that should be left in her name at the time of her death. Ellen died intestate on the 15th of February, 1889, having never executed any deed or other instrument to convey the real estate to Timothy. This claim is for the $1,700 which, by the agreement last mentioned, Ellen promised should be paid to Timothy. It also appeared that there were no other debts than this one against the estate of the said Ellen. Joseph Corr, the appellant, is a nephew of Ellen Keefe, and one of her heirs at law. Many reasons of appeal are assigned, but it is unnecessary to go over them in detail. They may all be considered in reference to one question: Was the promise so made by Ellen one that can be enforced either in law or in equity? If so, then the verdict is right. If otherwise, then there is error, and the judgment should be reversed.

The case was tried in the superior court upon the statement of the claim as it was presented to and allowed by the commissioners. It was simply a claim of indebtedness, "To cash, $1,700." After the jury had been impaneled, the appellant objected to the form of the statement on the ground that it was not a proper legal presentation of a claim against the estate of the deceased. The court overruled the objection. The ruling of the court would be sustained on the ground that the objection came too late. But, had the same objection been made seasonably, we think it was not tenable. The appellant might have moved for a more specific statement of the claim if he was in any doubt or ignorance in respect to the circumstances out of which it arose. The claim as presented was legal, and proper enough as to form. Prior to the present rule (58 Conn. 588) requiring "a statement of the amount, and nature of the claim, and of the facts upon which it is based." to be filed in all cases of appeal from the doings of commissioners on an insolvent estate in allowing or disallowing a claim, It was only necessary that the claim should be so stated that it could be understood. The whole question before the commissioners and before the superior court upon the appeal was whether the claim was one which should be allowed against the estate. Tolles' Appeal, 54 Conn. 521, 9 Atl. Rep. 402; Mead's Appeal from Probate, 46 Conn. 417; American Board of Commissioners' Appeal from Probate, 27 Conn. 344; Mills v. Wildman, 18 Conn. 124.

All the other reasons of appeal are based upon requests made to the court for instructions to the jury, and on the instructions actually given, and may all be referred to one of these inquiries: Was the promise barred by the statute of limitations? Was it without consideration? Was it one which the law does not recognize? As the precise promise on which the appellee seeks to recover was made not more than three or four years before the death of the intestate, it could not be affected by the statute of limitations. In considering the second inquiry, however, that statute does have an important bearing. When a man buys real estate with his own money, and has it conveyed to his wife or other near relative, prima facie a gift is presumed; but this is a presumption of fact, rather than one of law, and may always be rebutted. Hart v. Chase, 46 Conn. 267; Ward v. Ward, 59 Conn. 188, 22 Atl. Rep. 149. When the presumption is rebutted the case becomes one of a resulting trust in favor of the party paying the money. Such a trust may be proved by parol without offending against the statute of frauds. Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1040. And the nature of the trust which the law implies from the circumstances is not changed because the parties have actually made an agreement between themselves respecting the real estate, precisely identical with the one which the law imputes to them. Booth's...