Crane v. Manchester
| Decision Date | 30 October 1956 |
| Citation | 143 Conn. 716,126 A.2d 567 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ellena P. CRANE v. Mary E. MANCHESTER, Executrix (ESTATE of Lucy J. MEEKER). Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Charles G. Albom, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Nelson Harris and Joseph R. Apter, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
J. Stephen Knight, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
The only question presented on this appeal is whether the Probate Court for the district of New Haven acted in abuse of its discretion in entering an order of approval of the sale of real estate which had belonged to the decedent.
The following facts appear from the finding, which is not subject to correction. Mary E. Manchester, an attorney at law, was the duly appointed executrix under the will of Lucy J. Meeker, late of New Haven. Included in the assets of the estate was a residence located at 30 Cleveland Road, New Haven. On April 25, 1955, the executrix entered into a contract with The William T. Beazley Company, which was engaged in the real estate business, regarding the sale of this residence. The company placed a sign on the property, advertised it and listed it with the New Haven real estate board. The property was shown to between forty and fifty prospective customers. Finally Vinoenza P. Demmons made an offer of $17,000 for it. This was the highest offer received apart from one that had been rejected for credit reasons. The executrix decided to accept the Demmons offer. On August 12, 1955, she applied to the Probate Court for authority to sell the property in accordance with the offer. A hearing was held on this application on the morning of August 29, 1955. The executrix was present with her attorney. Attorney Nelson Harris was also present, acting as attorney for the plaintiff in this appeal and also for Concetta Barone. He stated that he had an offer of $17,500 for the property from Concetta Barone. There followed a discussion which terminated in an agreement that sealed written offers should be submitted. At about 2 p. m. the matter was again taken up. An attorney representing Vincenza P. Demmons was present. On behalf of his client he submitted a sealed written offer for the property in the amount of $17,600, with a deposit of $500. The only other sealed written offer was one submitted by Harris on behalf of Concetta Barone in the amount of $17,500, with a deposit of $500 by check of Harris Developing Associates. An attorney from Harris' office was present. The judge of probate stated that he would enter an order approving the proposed sale for $17,600 to Vincenza P. Demmons. Later in the afternoon, the attorney from Harris' office appeared in the Probate Court and orally stated that he would like to amend the $17,500 offer to one for $17,700. He was told by the judge that the matter was closed.
On the foregoing facts, the Probate Court made an order dated August 30, 1955, authorizing the sale of the property for $17,600. The plaintiff, who is a grandniece and heir at law of the deceased, has appealed from this order. The gist of the appeal is that the offer of $17,600 was made through the office of the Beazley Company, which would be entitled to, and would make a claim for, a broker's commission. In the reasons for appeal, it was alleged that the offers of Concetta Barone were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prince v. Sheffield
...concerned, or the scope and effect of an appeal therefrom. See Oles v. Furlong, 134 Conn. 334, 339, 57 A.2d 405. In Crane v. Manchester, 143 Conn. 716, 719, 126 A.2d 567, it was expressly held that an order for the sale of real estate under § 45-238 lay within the discretion of the probate ......
-
Marshall v. Kleinman
...in the proper discharge of its duty. Cf., e.g., Sklar v. Estate of Sklar, 168 Conn. 101, 110, 357 A.2d 900 (1975); Crane v. Manchester, 143 Conn. 716, 719, 126 A.2d 567 (1956). Therefore, a conclusion of a trial court to that effect must stand if it is reasonably supported by the facts. E.g......
-
Willard v. McKone
...that discretion had been legally and reasonably exercised.' Gwynn v. Tierney, 138 Conn. 425, 428, 85 A.2d 250, 251; Crane v. Manchester, 143 Conn. 716, 719, 126 A.2d 567; Baldwin v. Tradesmens National Bank, 147 Conn. 656, 659, 165 A.2d 331. This is necessarily so since 'to say that the Sup......
-
Baldwin v. Tradesmens Nat. Bank
...that discretion had been legally and reasonably exercised.' Gwynn v. Tierney, 138 Conn. 425, 428, 84 A.2d 250, 251; Crane v. Manchester, 143 Conn. 716, 719, 126 A.2d 567. This is necessarily so, since to hold 'that the Superior Court on appeal from probate may [itself] exercise * * * [a] di......