Hardy v. Scott
| Decision Date | 04 April 1941 |
| Citation | 127 Conn. 722,19 A.2d 420 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | HARDY v. SCOTT. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Raymond J. Devlin and Walter M. Pickett, Judges.
Action by Prince Hardy against Conyer Scott for possession of real estate and other relief, brought to the court of common pleas, where demurrer to complaint was overruled and issues were tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
No error.
Franklin Coeller, of New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
William L. Beers, of New Haven (George E. Beers, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellee (plaintiff).
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff deeded the property in question to the defendant and the latter's wife, Francener Scott, reserving a life use and on condition that the Scotts support him during his life with reversion to the grantor on breach of the condition; Francener Scott died intestate about two years before the bringing of the action leaving the defendant as her sole heir-at-law and successor in title; the condition of the deed was broken by the defendant and the plaintiff was entitled to possession and title to the premises. The defendant demurred because neither the administrator, heirs or personal representatives of Francener were made parties. The demurrer was overruled and this action was assigned as error. Errors in the charge were also assigned but these are not before us since there is no finding in the record.
The demurrer admitted facts well pleaded. State's Attorney v. Selectmen of Branford, 59 Conn. 402, 411, 22 A. 336. It therefore admitted the allegation that the defendant was Francener's sole heir-at-law. This might have been so. General Statutes, § 5156. Title to intestate lands vests at once in the heirs ‘ subject only to such rights as might arise out of the need to come upon them to satisfy debts and expenses of administration, and distribution was not necessary to confer title.’ Perkins v. August, 109 Conn. 452, 456, 146 A. 831, 833; Bowen v. Morgillo, 127 Conn. 161, 168, 14 A.2d 724. Extraneous facts may exist which would disclose a deficiency of necessary parties but these could not be taken advantage of by demurrer.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNish v. American Brass Co.
...himself as unfair labor practices. The plaintiff's demurrer admitted facts well pleaded in the special defenses. Hardy v. Scott, 127 Conn. 722, 723, 19 A.2d 420. On this basis the defendants claim: The plaintiff's charges are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national labor relations......
-
Gorke v. Le Clerc
...proceeding the truth of the allegations of the complaint. Vogel v. Bacus, 133 Conn. 95, 97, 48 A.2d 237, 169 A.L.R. 910; Hardy v. Scott, 127 Conn. 722, 723, 19 A.2d 420. It should also be noted that although the complaint does not expressly allege that the fetus was viable at the time of in......
-
O'Connell v. Zehring
...have rejected the existence of an exception to the rule against speaking motions reached that conclusion on the basis of this statement in Hardy .[4] See, e.g., Chin v. 355 Greenwich, LLC, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. CV-05-4006579-S, (September 24, 2008......
-
Wachtel v. Rosol
...implied from the other averments. Wexler Construction Co. v. Housing Authority, 144 Conn. 187, 193, 128 A.2d 540; Hardy v. Scott, 127 Conn. 722, 723, 19 A.2d 420; Lord v. Russell, 64 Conn. 86, 87, 29 A. 242. The question, then, is whether the plaintiff has alleged facts from which it can be......