Appeal of O'Neil
| Citation | 55 Conn. 409,11 A. 857 |
| Parties | Appeal of O'NEIL. |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1887 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county; FENN, Judge.
Petition by James F. R. O'Neil to the probate court to ascertain the heirs and distributees of Patrick Reynolds, deceased, and to make an order for the distribution of the estate. The petition was refused by the probate court. This decree was reversed by the superior court, and the administratrix appeals.
R. E. Be Forest, for appellant. D. Davenport and C. S. Canfield, for appellee.
The appellant is an heir at law of Patrick Reynolds, deceased, whose estate is in settlement in the Bridgeport probate district. Claiming as such heir at law, he asked the probate court to ascertain the heirs and distributees of the estate, and to make an order for the distribution of the estate to the ascertained heirs. In the orderly administration of an intestate estate, this is the right of the heir to ask, and the duty of the court in due season to make. This duty is commanded by the express words of the statute. Sess. Laws 1885, c. 110, § 197. The only objection that is made to such an order is that upon the application of Rosa Reynolds, the administratrix, the court of probate has heretofore made an order of distribution, and that, in pursuance of such order, the administratrix had in fact paid over to the respective persons named in that order the several sums named therein. The probate court refused the appellant's application. The ground of the refusal does not appear in the record, but presumably it was because the facts found by the appellate court were not made to appear in the probate court. The order of distribution made at the instance of the said Rosa Reynolds was, upon the appeal of this appellant, reversed and set aside. And it is found that the appellant was not named in the first order of distribution. And it is further found by the superior court that "at the time the administratrix applied to the court of probate for the passage of the several orders referred to, [that is, the orders preliminary to and including the first order of distribution,] at the time of making said payments pursuant to the order, and at all times since the death of the intestate, the appellee [Rosa Reynolds] knew that the appellant was in existence, and was an heir to the estate, as hereinbefore recited, and intentionally concealed and withheld said knowledge from the court of probate, and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weyant v. Utah Savings & Trust Co.
...159 Ill.App. 35; 18 Cyc. 1275; Pollock v. Cox, 108 Ga. 430, 34 S.E. 213; In re Killan's Estate, 63 L. R. A. 96, notes; O'Neil's App., 55 Conn. 409, 11 A. 857. as to probate bond. Slater v. McAvoy, 123 Cal. 437, 56 P. 49; Comp. Laws Utah 1907, section 3926 (Code Civ. Proc. Cal. section 1458)......
-
Anderson v. Lyons
...Cal. 471, 23 P.2d 758, 88 A.L.R. 1194. Distribution under the fraudulent decree was therefore no protection to defendant. O'Neil's Appeal, 55 Conn. 409, 11 A. 857. 3. The order of the probate court denying, upon the ground of unreasonable delay, plaintiff's motion to vacate the probate decr......
-
Diamond v. Connolly
... ... of laches, and were barred by the general statute of ... limitations. Plaintiffs appeal ... The ... suit in its main aspect is one seeking to charge Connolly, ... administrator, as a trustee for plaintiffs, and individually, ... ...
-
Winsted Hosiery Co. v. New Britain
... ... 565 ... WINSTED HOSIERY CO. v. NEW BRITAINKNITTING CO ... Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut ... July 13, 1897 ... Appeal from court of common pleas, Litchfield county; Arthur D. Warner, Judge. Replevin by the Winsted Hosiery Company against the New Britain Knitting ... ...