Crane v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1930
• Citation: 111 Conn. 313,149 A. 782
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CRANE v. HARTFORD-CONNECTICUT TRUST CO.

149 A. 782

111 Conn. 313

CRANE v. HARTFORD-CONNECTICUT TRUST CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 31, 1930

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; John Richards Booth Judge.

Proceedings for the probate of the will of Harriet M. Bundy, deceased. From a decree admitting the will to probate, Louise Bundy Crane appeals, opposed by the Hartford Connecticut Trust Company, executor.

No error.

Cornelius J. Danaher, of Meriden, for appellant.

Anson T. McCook, Hugh M. Alcorn, and Allan E. Brosmith, all of Hartford, for appellee St. Francis Hospital.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.

MALTBIE, J.

This action is an appeal from the admission to probate of the will of Harriet M. Bundy. After making certain specific gifts, the will gave the residue, comprising the bulk of the estate, to the defendant trust company as trustee, to pay one-half of the net income to Mrs. Catherine J. Machon so long as she lived, and one-tenth of it to each of five persons named, a niece and four cousins, for her life, with provisions for the disposal of these shares of income upon the death of each of the beneficiaries named until the death of the last survivor when that occurred, the property was to be held in trust, in perpetuity, the income to be paid to certain institutions, a Home for Aged People, three hospitals, and the Wadsworth Atheneum of Hartford, and to the Congregational Home Missionary Society. Mrs. Machon was in no way related to Miss Bundy, but had lived with her for some ten years as housekeeper, companion, and friend. The appellant was an aunt and one of the next of kin and heirs at law of Miss Bundy. She claimed that Miss Bundy lacked testamentary capacity, and that the will was the result of undue influence exerted upon her, particularly by Mrs. Machon.

The first ten reasons of appeal assign error in short extracts from the charge. In her brief the appellant discusses only two of these, and there is not sufficient merit in the claims of error as to the others to justify comment. With reference to the issue of undue influence, the trial court charged the jury that, where a gift is made to one who is not a relative and would not be an heir in the absence of a will, but who stands in a relation of peculiar trust and confidence to the testator, the burden of proof shifts, and it is for the recipient of the testator's bounty to disprove the existence of such influence; and that such a relationship might arise out of various situations, as of attorney and client, religious adviser, guardian and ward, or, as claimed in the particular case, out of the relationship of Mrs. Machon to Miss Bundy as confidential adviser in her financial, religious, domestic, and other affairs. The court then left it to the jury to determine, before applying this rule, whether such a confidential relationship did in fact exist, and of this the appellant complains. Upon the claims of the parties as to the facts proven, it is difficult to see any substantial basis for a finding that such a relationship as would come within the rule did exist in the instant case; but, if it was an open question, it was certainly, as the trial court left it, a question of fact for the...