Appeal of Wilson

• Decision Date: 31 July 1911
• Citation: 80 A. 718,84 Conn. 560
• Parties: Appeal of WILSON.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

80 A. 718

84 Conn. 560

Appeal of WILSON.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 31, 1911.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Joel H. Reed, Judge.

Application by Samuel Wilson for an order directing the administrator of his wife's estate to transfer certain realty to him. From a judgment of the superior court reversing the decree of the probate court denying the application, an appeal is taken. Reversed and remanded, with directions to affirm order of the probate court.

Ulysses G. Church, for appellant.

Terrence F. Carmody, for appellee.

HALL, C. J. On the 11th of January, 1910, the appellant, Samuel Wilson, filed in the probate court of Waterbury, under section 370 of the General Statutes of 1902, as amended by chapter 16 of the Public Acts of 1907, an application and complaint, alleging that certain land, the legal and record title to which was in his deceased wife, Ada Wilson, at the time of her death, belonged to him, and asking the court to direct her administrator, Wilfred V. Warner, to convey said land to the appellant.

Due notice was given to said administrator and to the guardian ad litem of the 11 children of Samuel and Ada Wilson, and on the 24th of January, 1910, the court of probate denied said application pro forma, and the appellant appealed from said denial to the superior court, which court granted the application.

In his reasons of appeal filed in the superior court, the appellant alleges, in substance, that he purchased the land in question with his own money; that at the time of such purchase it was agreed by himself and his wife that, owing to his ill health and the probability that she would survive him. the title to said land should be taken in her name, but to be transferred to him by her, or by her legal representative, upon his request; and upon his death, before her decease, to become hers absolutely. The answer to the reasons of appeal denied these averments.

The judgment file states that, having heard the parties upon these issues, the allegations of the reasons of appeal are found true; that the deceased, Ada Wilson, contributed nothing toward the purchase price of the property in question; that a resulting trust was created by said conveyance and agreement; that Ada Wilson never held the land adversely; that she had no other legal or equitable title than trustee of such resulting trust; and that the court orders the administrator "to convey to the appellant the above-described real property by legal and proper conveyance. * * *"

The finding of facts states that, prior to the purchase of said property, there was no written agreement between the appellant and his wife regarding the conveyance of said property to her, and that she afterwards gave him none; that the appellant and his wife, Ada, and their children lived upon said farm property until her death in 1900; that he took no steps to have administration granted on his wife's estate, or to have the title to said land conveyed to him until nearly three years after his wife's death; that be remarried in 1909, and has since lived upon the property with his second wife and the children of his first marriage; that in 1909, having refused to apply for administration upon Ada Wilson's estate, his son applied to have the estate duly administered; and that the property in question is of the value of about $3,000.

The act under which the application and order was made provides that: "The court of probate having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of any deceased person may, concurrently with courts of equity, authorize the executor or administrator to convey the title of the deceased in any real estate to any person entitled to it by virtue of any contract of such deceased person, or to convey the title of the deceased in any real estate held or taken by him in any fiduciary capacity, to his successor or to the person or persons entitled thereto. * * *"

It is contended generally by the appellee that it was not the purpose of this statute to empower courts of probate, in directing executors and administrators, in the settlement of an estate, to convey the title of the deceased in real estate held by him in a fiduciary capacity to the person entitled thereto, to try and determine disputed questions of title to land, or to direct such conveyance of an alleged trust title upon such facts and circumstances as appear in this case.

The title ordered to be conveyed was not a title under an express trust Such a trust could not have been proved by the parol evidence offered. Brown v. Brown, GO Conn. 499, 34 Atl. 490; Todd v. Munson, 53 Conn. 589, 4 Atl. 99.

It is evident that it was not the purpose of this application to procure a mere formal...