Clark v. Baker
| Decision Date | 01 June 1917 |
| Citation | 91 Conn. 663,101 A. 9 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CLARK v. BAKER et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; William L Bennett, Judge.
Suit by Andrew M. Clark, administrator, against Emma J. Baker and others to determine the construction of the will of Mary E. Baker, deceased. From a judgment adverse to her claims, Ethel G. Baker Palmer appeals. No error.
Mary E. Baker died July 7, 1911, leaving a will duly probated by which she made the following disposition of her estate:
"I give, devise and bequeath all of my estate both real and personal to my husband, Jacob Baker, his heirs and assigns, but it is my wish and desire that after his decease so much as is left unused by him be divided equally between our adopted son Roy H. Baker and Ethel G. Baker."
The husband, Jacob Baker, was named executor without bonds. The plaintiff is his successor by appointment of the probate court.
The testatrix and her husband, during their married life, which covered 30 years, and down to her death, occupied a farm in Goshen which, together with the farm implements thereon and the household furniture and appointments, Mrs. Baker had inherited from her parents. They were childless. During the early years of their married life they took to live with them and bring up the defendants Roy H. Baker and his sister Ethel G. Baker Palmer, children of a niece of Mrs. Baker. Ethel, who was born in 1884, was so taken when she was about 3 years of age, and thereafter remained with the Bakers until she was 17 years old, when she married. Roy, who was older than Ethel, had been previously taken, and legally adopted. Ethel was never adopted. The children, whose name at birth was Payne, took the name of Baker, and were brought up by the Bakers as if they were their children. They addressed the Bakers as father and mother, the relation between them and their foster parents was cordial and like that between parents and children, and no distinction between them in that regard was made. After Ethel was married she returned to the Baker home from time to time, and whenever Mrs. Baker was sick Ethel was called for, and always went and took care of her foster mother. During Mrs. Baker's last illness Ethel returned and cared for her until she died.
Mrs. Baker at her death owned the farm in Goshen together with the personal property thereon and other personal estate. After her death Jacob continued to occupy the farm until September, 1913, when he married the defendant Emma Wilcox, his housekeeper. Thereafter they continued in the occupancy of the farm until Jacob's death, intestate, March 24, 1915. No conveyance of the farm was made.
During the trial there was offered on behalf of Ethel a letter written to her by Jacob in September, 1913, subsequent to his remarriage, containing statements indicative of Jacob's understanding of his former wife's will and of Ethel's rights under it and also of oral statements to the same effect made by Jacob to her subsequent to Mrs. Baker's death. This evidence, under objection, was excluded.
The advice of the superior court was asked in answer to the following questions:
(a) Did Jacob Baker take an estate in fee in the real and an absolute estate in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Lyman
...as to the use which the defendant would make of the unrestricted power of invasion expressly given her. See cases such as Clark v. Baker, 91 Conn. 663, 666, 101 A. 9. This is quite a different thing from his expressed intent. Even if it were clear that the settlor had mistakenly reposed con......
-
Cumming v. Pendleton
...and to intrust to their discretion the exercise of the option to comply or to refuse to comply with his wish?" The case of Clark v. Baker, 91 Conn. 663, 101 A. 9, 10, upon which counsel for the widow rely, clearly does govern the case at bar. In the former the language used was: " I give, d......
-
Burr v. Tierney
... ... doubtful meaning or uncertain in its indication of the ... testator's intent." Clark v. Baker, 91 ... Conn. 663, 666, 101 A. 9, 10; Meriden Trust & Safe ... Deposit Co. v. Squire, 92 Conn. 440, 103 A. 269 ... It is ... ...
-
Meriden Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Squire
...meaning or uncertain in its indication of the testamentary intent, and be equivalent to a positive provision. Clark' v. Baker, 91 Conn. 663, 666, 101 Atl. 9; Strong v. Elliott, 84 Conn. 665, 671, 81 Atl. 1020; Mansfield v. Shelton, 67 Conn. 390, 394, 35 Atl., 271, 52 Am. St. Rep. The subseq......