Gaffney v. Tammany et nx

• Decision Date: 01 May 1900
• Citation: 72 Conn. 701,46 A. 156
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GAFFNEY v. TAMMANY et nx.

46 A. 156

72 Conn. 701

GAFFNEY

v. TAMMANY et nx.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 1, 1900.

Appeal from district court of Waterbury; Albert P. Bradstreet, Judge.

Action by John W. Gaffney against Joseph Tammany and wife. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

John H. Light, for appellants. John O'Neill, for appellee.

ANDREWS, C. J.Catherine Martin is the executrix named in the will of one Bridget Gilhuly, late of Norwalk. That will has been duly established. On the 7th day of January, 1898, she made a writing to the plaintiff in this case, as follows: "In the fall of 1882 Joseph Tammany and Mary Tammany made a contract with Bridget Gilhuly to provide her with a comfortable home and support during the remainder of her life, and to pay her funeral expenses at her decease. It is claimed that the Tammanys did not perform their contract to support, or pay said funeral expenses. The rights of the deceased and of the executrix under said contract I hereby assign and transfer to John W. Gaffney, who is to bring suit against the Tammanys on said contract in his own name; and, after deducting all the law cost and expenses which he may be at in the prosecution of said action, any balance that may remain shall be returned to me. [Signed] Catherine Martin, as Executrix of Bridget Gilhuly, Late of Norwalk, Deceased." In the complaint it is alleged that the plaintiff is now "the equitable and good-faith owner of said chose in action." The present action was made returnable to the district court of Waterbury on the first Tuesday of February, 1898. On the 31st day of January, 1898, a few days before that term of court, Catherine Martin filed a motion to be made a party plaintiff in said action; alleging therein that, as executrix of Bridget Gilhuly, she had an interest in the subject-matter of said suit, and in obtaining the judgment therein demanded. The defendants pleaded in abatement,—really a plea to the jurisdiction of the court The plea sets forth generally that none of the persons interested in the said cause of action, other than Mr. Gaffney, are resident within the district of Waterbury, and that the said court has no jurisdiction over them, or any of them, nor of said cause of action, and that Mr. Gaffney is not the equitable and bona fide owner of the chose in action. It is admitted that none of the persons interested in this suit, other than the plaintiff, reside in the district of Waterbury. The question then...