Crane v. Manchester
| Decision Date | 19 June 1956 |
| Citation | 123 A.2d 752,143 Conn. 498 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ellena P. CRANE v. Mary E. MANCHESTER, Executrix (ESTATE of Lucy J. MEEKER), et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Nelson Harris, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph R. Apter, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
J. Stephen Knight, New Haven, for appellees (defendants).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
Lucy J. Meeker of New Haven died on February 25, 1955, leaving an instrument dated November 23, 1953, and another dated September 30, 1954, which on March 4, 1955, were admitted to probate as her last will and a codicil, thereto. From this decree the plaintiff, a grandniece of the deceased, appealed to the Superior Court, alleging in her reasons of appeal that at the time the decedent executed the instruments, and for some time prior thereto, she lacked testamentary capacity and that the instruments offered for probate and admitted by the Probate Court are not the last will and codicil of the deceased. The court directed a verdict for the defendants and judgment was rendered thereon. The plaintiff appealed, claiming that the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants, in denying her motion to set aside the verdict and in rulings on evidence. In addition she seeks several corrections in the finding.
The named defendant is a legatee and the executrix named in the instrument claimed by the defendants to be the last will of the decedent. The other defendants are named legatees or devisees in either the will or the codicil. At the trial, the persons whose names appear on the will and the codicil as attesting witnesses testified that they were present at and attested the execution of the instruments by the decedent, that they subscribed in the presence of the decedent and each other, that she appeared to be of sound mind, and to other facts which the defendants contend prove that all of the statutory requirements for the execution of a will or codicil were complied with. The plaintiff offered no witnesses but cross-examined the defendants' witnesses. After the evidence had been presented, the plaintiff made a motion for a directed verdict; the defendants, likewise, moved for a directed verdict. The court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the motion of the defendants upon the ground that only a verdict in favor of the defendants would be proper upon the evidence.
Section 6950 of the General Statutes provides that any person of the age of eighteen years and of sound mind may dispose of his or her estate by will. Section 6951 provides that '[n]o will or codicil shall be valid to pass any estate unless it be in writing, subscribed by the testator and attested by three witnesses, each of them subscribing in his presence.' This section is prohibitive and exhaustive with relation to one's power to dispose of property after death by will, that is, by bequest or devise. Costello v. Costello, 136 Conn. 611, 614, 73 A.2d 333; Hatheway v. Smith, 79 Conn. 506, 512, 65 A. 1058, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 310. The appeal from the decree of the Probate Court accepting the will and the codicil took up to the Superior Court for retrial the special statutory issue whether the will and the codicil were valid, to be decided in the same manner as if it had not been decided in the Probate Court, and the burden of proving it rested upon the defendants as the proponents of the will. The filing by the plaintiff of her reasons of appeal did not and could not change the statutory issue as to the validity of the will or relieve the defendants of the burden of proving due execution as well as testamentary capacity. Boschen v. Second National Bank, 130...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silverstein v. Silverstein, No. CV 04-0083699 S (CT 2/24/2005), CV 04-0083699 S
...174 Conn. 193, 194, 384 A.2d 367 (1978); D'Agostino v. Amarante, 172 Conn. 529, 530-31, 375 A.2d 1013 (1977); Crane v. Manchester, 143 Conn. 498, 501, 123 A.2d 752 (1956). The burden remains the same on appeal whether the proponent is the appellant or the appellee and whether or not the opp......
-
Lancaster v. Bank of New York
...raised the two statutory issues of due execution and testamentary capacity. General Statutes §§ 45-160, 45-161; Crane v. Manchester, 143 Conn. 498, 501, 123 A.2d 752, and cases cited. They also included a claim that the will, which was executed April 25, 1957, was the product of undue influ......
-
Bezzini v. Department of Social Services
...the proper execution and administration thereof. Barnes v. Viering, 152 Conn. 243, 246, 206 A.2d 112 (1964); Crane v. Manchester, 143 Conn. 498, 500-501, 123 A.2d 752 (1956). The creation of a revocable trust is not a testamentary act and need not conform to the requirements of the common-l......
-
Davis v. Davis-Henriques
...issue as to the validity of the will or relieve [him] of the burden of proving due execution” under § 45a–251. Crane v. Manchester, 143 Conn. 498, 501, 123 A.2d 752 (1956).9 The same judge, Hon. Marianne Lassman Fisher, presided over all relevant Probate Court proceedings in this case.10 In......
-
Designating a Conservator in Connecticut: Whose Interests Are Served by a Best Interests Analysis?
...GEN. STAT. § 45a-290(a) (emphasis supplied). 42. State v. Tareha, 3 Conn. Cir. 43, 45, 207 A.2d 72, 74 (1964). 43. Crane v. Manchester, 143 Conn. 498, 501; 123 A.2d 754 (1956). 44. I Conn. 64, 72 (1814) (J. Baldwin, dissenting). 45. CONN. GEN. Stat., § 45a-290(a); Willhelm, CONNECTICUT ESTA......