Condon v. Pomeroy-Grace
| Decision Date | 02 April 1901 |
| Citation | 73 Conn. 607,48 A. 756 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CONDON et al. v. POMEROY-GRACE. |
Appeal from superior court, Hartford county; Silas A. Robinson, Judge.
Action by Patrick H. Condon and others, selectmen of the town of Bristol, against Ruana E. Pomeroy-Grace. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. From a judgment denying costs, plaintiffs appeal. Judgment for plaintiffs affirmed. Judgment denying costs reversed.
This action was brought by the selectmen of the town of Bristol under section 3318, Gen. St., as amended by chapter 88, Pub. Acts 1893. The allegations of the complaint are: The relief claimed is "an order upon the defendant to contribute to such support, from the date hereof, such sum as the court may find to be reasonable and necessary." The answer denied paragraphs 1 and 4, and admitted paragraphs 2 and 3. It also stated a second defense, alleging that the defendant has continuously offered to support Mrs. Baldwin at her house in Hartford, but that the selectmen have insisted that such support should be furnished directly to the town, in the form of cash payments. The reply denied the allegations of the second defense, and, in avoidance of that defense, alleged that Mrs. Baldwin had tried to live with defendant at her house, but had been treated with such unkindness and neglect that she was not able to remain, and that the defendant's house was not a suitable home for Mrs. Baldwin. The substantial issues of fact tried by the court were raised by the defendant's denial of paragraphs 1 and 4 of the complaint, and by the defendant's denial of the matter in avoidance of the second defense alleged by the plaintiffs in their reply. After judgment for the plaintiffs, the court (Robinson, J.), upon request of defendant, made a special finding. A motion to correct this finding was denied, and exception taken. The errors assigned in the defendant's appeal are: The appeal was afterwards amended by adding a claim of error in denying the defendant's motion to correct the finding by striking out the paragraphs relating to the defendant's treatment of her mother, which motion was made on the ground that the facts as found by the court, while supported by the testimony of one witness, were denied by that of throe, and also that the court had found one fact without any evidence. The plaintiff's appeal assigns as the only error the refusal of the court to give judgment for costs to the plaintiffs.
J. Gilbert Calhoun and Edward J. Garvan, for appellant.
Epaphroditus Peck, for appellees.
HAMERSLEY, J. (after stating the facts). The defendant's appeal discloses no error. The judgment of the trial court found al) the issues of fact in favor of the plaintiffs. The conclusions of the judgment are consistent with the subordinate facts found.
The claim of inconsistency in the only particulars suggested in the reasons of appeal has no merit. These conclusions cannot, therefore, be reviewed, unless they involve some erroneous view of the law. The assignment of errors in law lacks that clearness and distinctness which is strictly requisite. Treating the errors discussed in argument as sufficiently specified, they all depend upon the soundness of this proposition: As a matter of law, the court cannot order the defendant to contribute the sum of $12.50 per month towards the support of her mother, so long as the defendant expresses her willingness to support her mother in the defendant's home, which is suitable and satisfactory, so far as her mother's physical comfort and material surroundings are concerned; and this is true, notwithstanding the fact that, by reason of the defendant's harsh treatment of her mother while an inmate of the defendant's house and subsequently, that home has become so hateful to the mother that any attempt to keep her there by compulsion would be exceedingly cruel to her. This proposition is not sound. While the willingness of a daughter to provide for her mother in the daughter's home may affect the determination of her neglect, within the meaning of the statute, it is only one element, and not conclusive. The superior court has found the fact of neglect in view of all the evidence, and that finding must stand unless the court erred in refusing to consider as decisive of the question an offer by the daughter of a comfortable bed and sufficient food, coupled with such harsh treatment from the daughter as justly compelled its refusal. The law does not force a parent to become the unhappy prisoner of a thankless child, as the only alternative of starvation. A house, however comfortable and luxurious as to its material appointments, where one is subjected to treatment which renders life unendurable, is not a suitable home, even for an aged pauper. As to the defendant's claim that the facts found do not support the conclusion of the court in reference to the daughter's conduct, we think they are too plainly sufficient to justify discussion. Indeed, it would seem difficult for an impartial mind to reach a different conclusion, in view of facts appearing in the record, as admitted by the daughter.
If we rightly apprehend the underlying logic of the considerations urged by defendant's counsel they depend upon a misapprehension of the statute under which this action is brought, and especially upon the claim that the statute imposes upon the daughter an absolute legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Driscoll v. Jewell Belting Co.
... ... witness in opposition to that of several others testifying to ... the contrary. Condon et al. v. Pomroy-Grace, 73 ... Conn. 607, 614, 48 A. 756, 53 L.R.A. 696. Whether we would ... have reached a like conclusion had we been charged ... ...
-
State v. Griffiths
...an adult does not empower the person so obligated to determine the place where that support shall be furnished. Condon v. Pomroy-Grace, 73 Conn. 607, 611, 48 A. 756; see also Backus v. Dudley, 3 Conn. 568, 573. The record in this case leaves wholly to conjecture the reasons for Mary's refus......
-
Bismarck Hospital And Deaconesses Home v. Harris
... ... resulted in an order compelling him to do so. Pinel v ... Rapid R. System, 150 N.W. 897; Condon v ... Pomroy-Grace, 73 Conn. 607, 53 L.R.A. 696; Wethersfield ... v. Montague, 3 Conn. 507 ... The ... duty of a child of ... ...
-
Keans v. Bottiarelli
...1 It is well settled that the "right to costs must be based on some statute or authorized rule of the court. Condon v. Pomroy-Grace, 73 Conn. 607, 614, 48 A. 756 (1901); see also Bridgeport Gas Co. v. United Mine Workers, 21 Conn.Sup. 331, 154 A.2d 530 (1959)." Triangle Contractors, Inc. v.......