Doolan v. Heiser

• Decision Date: 10 June 1915
• Citation: 89 Conn. 321,94 A. 354
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DOOLAN v. HEISER et al.

94 A. 354

89 Conn. 321

DOOLAN

v. HEISER et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 10, 1915.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.

Action by William H. Doolan against Agnes Heiser and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

Arthur B. O'Keefe, of New Haven, for appellant. L. Erwin Jacobs, of New Haven, for appellees.

ROBABACK, J. The plaintiff claimed that the furniture sought to be replevined belonged to him, and that he purchased it with his own money. The defendants claimed that they obtained title to the furniture in question by gift from the wife of the plaintiff, Minnie Doolan, now deceased. Mrs. Doolan was the daughter of one of the defendants and a sister of the other defendant. Minnie Doolan, during her lifetime, carried on business upon her own account and was a woman of means. The defendants further claimed: That Mrs. Doolan offered to purchase a house if the defendants would go and live in it. That the house was purchased, and the defendants went and lived in it. Mrs. Doolan also offered to purchase furniture to properly furnish this house, and that the furniture should become the property of the defendants. That Mrs. Doolan bought this furniture for the defendants and paid for it out of her own funds, and that it was delivered to the defendants and in their possession when this action was commenced.

The trial court found that the deceased, Minnie Doolan, intended to and did give the furniture in question to the defendants. The assignments of error made by plaintiff, all of which relate to rulings upon evidence, are not proper in form, in that they fail to point out the particular ruling or rulings complained of. When, as in the present case, a paragraph in the finding contains a great number of questions and answers given by a witness, the greater number of which came in without objection or exception, but to which one or more objections and exceptions are taken, it is not enough in the appeal to merely assign an error that the court erred in admitting the testimony of such a witness as contained in such a paragraph. The particular ruling or rulings complained of in the appeal should be clearly indicated. Bank v. Catlin, 82 Conn. 229, 73 Atl. 3.

Notwithstanding this irregularity, we have the power to waive it, and, under the circumstances of the case, we have reached the conclusion to consider the questions which the plaintiff wishes this court to pass upon, and which both parties pursued in their arguments.

One question is whether or not the declarations by Minnie Doolan, now deceased, in the absence of the plaintiff, her husband, which were indicative of her intention to make a gift of this furniture to the defendants, were admissible.

These statements, as the plaintiff contends, cannot be upheld as the declarations of a deceased person, under section 705 of the General Statutes. This statute applies only in favor of those who sue or defend in the interest of the estate, either as a personal...