Dickerman v. Alling

• Decision Date: 14 June 1910
• Citation: 76 A. 362,83 Conn. 342
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DICKERMAN et al. v. ALLING et al.

76 A. 362

83 Conn. 342

DICKERMAN et al.

v. ALLING et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 14, 1910.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Howard J. Curtis, Judge.

Judicial settlement of the accounts of David R. Ailing, as executor of the will of George H. Ailing, deceased. From an order of the superior court, allowing the account showing payments by the executor, pursuant to a decree and return of distribution of the estate, R. Charles Dickerman and others appeal. Affirmed.

Watrous & Day, for appellants.

Livingstone W. Cleaveland and Clarence W.

Bronson, for appellees.

RORABACK, J. George H. Ailing died testate without issue. He left no parents, brothers or sisters, or their representatives, no grandparents, or great-grandparents, and no uncles or aunts. He left a widow, 4 first cousins, and 32 descendants of first cousins. His will, dated November 13, 1906, and admitted to probate in February, 1908, reads as follows:

"First: I give and bequeath to my beloved wife Esther Ailing my house and lot estimated to be three acres of land situated in said town of Orange at the corner of Milford Turnpike and Campbell Avenue being the same where I now live, and also the lot adjoining in the rear estimated to contain two acres and called the small house lot. I also give to her two thousand (2,000) dollars in money, all my horses, wagons, carriages, sleighs and harnesses, all farming tools, and utensils and all household furniture of every description including carpets and bedding to her and her heirs forever.

"Second: One half of the residue and remainder of my property both real and personal I give and bequeath to my said wife Esther Ailing to her and her heirs forever.

"Third: The remaining one half of my estate not heretofore given in this will to my wife I desire to be distributed among my legal heirs, and legal representatives according to the laws of distribution of the state of Connecticut."

The probate court found that the appellants being children of first cousins who died before the testator were not entitled to share in the division of that portion of his estate referred to in the third paragraph of the will. The appellants claimed to be aggrieved and appealed to the superior court.

The reasons of appeal add nothing to the facts above indicated, except paragraph 4, which reads that: "The appellants stood in close and intimate relations with the testator, and were on much more friendly terms with him than were many of the first cousins to whom distribution was made by the order appealed from, and, by the phrase 'legal representatives,' the testator intended representatives of deceased first cousins." The appellees demurred to the reasons of appeal, claiming that the construction made by the probate court was correct; and that the facts alleged in paragraph 4, above quoted, were inadmissible, because...