Harris v. Spencer
| Decision Date | 29 November 1898 |
| Citation | 71 Conn. 233,41 A. 773 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | HARRIS v. SPENCER. |
Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; Samuel O. Prentice, Judge.
Bill by Thomas Harris against Emma E. Spencer. There was a decree for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
V. Munger, for appellant.
Edwin B. Gager and George C. Bryant for appellee.
The plaintiff set forth in the complaint that his intestate, who was his wife, in her lifetime owned eight shares of a certain stock worth $2,000; that shortly before her death she transferred said shares by a transfer apparently absolute, to the defendant; that his said wife "did not make such transfer of her own free choice and will, but in consequence of the unlawful and fraudulent and deceitful acts and inducements exercised upon and towards her by the defendant." This transfer was made on the 2d day of August, 1897. Mrs. Harris died on the 28th day of September next following. In his prayer for relief "the plaintiff claims by way of equitable relief that said transfer of stock so obtained by the defendant from the said Cora Harris may be set aside, and declared null and void, and that title thereto may be vested in the plaintiff, as administrator on the estate of the said Cora Harris." The plaintiff, as the administrator of Cora Harris, takes the title to, and is entitled to have the possession of, all the personal property of which she was the owner at the time of her death. If Cora Harris was, on the day of her death, the owner of the said shares of stock, then the plaintiff is entitled to have this prayer for relief granted; otherwise not. The question may be stated in this way: Did Mrs. Harris, on the last day of her life, have such a right to these shares of stock that she might have maintained a suit therefor against the present defendant? Stated in this way, the answer comes from the finding. The trial court has found that the transfer of the said shares was an absolute gift by Mrs. Harris to the defendant perfected by the change of possession; and that it was without fraud, illegality, or undue influence. This finding is decisive. Mrs. Harris could not at any time in her life, after making that gift have maintained a suit therefor against the defendant. It is clear that as administrator the plaintiff shows no ground for a decree in his favor. As respects him, a title by gift in the defendant is not distinguishable from a title by purchase for a valuable consideration. Camp's Appeal, 36 Conn. 92. See, also, Gilligan v. Lord, 51 Conn. 562. This case has been argued here (it seems to have been tried in the court below) as though the plaintiff was seeking to recover, not as administrator, but in his own right as husband. The plaintiff and his wife were married on the 3d day of March, 1897. The claim of the plaintiff in this behalf is that, as by Gen. St. § 623, he would be entitled to an interest in the property which his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Lawrence
... ... might attempt, she stood on the same footing as any other ... distributees. In Harris v. Spencer, 71 Conn. 233, ... 237, 41 A. 773, we showed that either husband or wife may ... during life dispose of his or her property in any ... ...
-
Cherniack v. Home Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Meriden
...between the plaintiff and the decedent, since there was none. See Hall v. Hall, 91 Conn. 514, 518, 100 A. 441; Harris v. Spencer, 71 Conn. 233, 236, 41 A. 773; Ullrich v. Ullrich, 68 Conn. 580, 585, 37 A. 393; note, 49 A.L.R.2d 521, 556 § See cases such as Harris v. Spencer, 71 Conn. 233, 2......
-
Meriden Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Miller
...unless that conclusion is one which could not reasonably be drawn. Humiston v. Preston, 66 Conn. 579, 584, 34 Atl. 544; Harris v. Spencer, 71 Conn. 233, 236, 41 Atl. 773; Brosty v. Thompson, 79 Conn. 133, 64 Atl. Correction is asked of the finding that the sons exercised dominion over these......
-
Hall v. Hall
...to his brother after she had threatened to sue for divorce and alimony and to attach her husband's property; and in Harris v. Spencer, 71 Conn. 233, 236, 41 Atl. 773, it is said that a husband married before 1877, and therefore entitled to an interest in his wife's property after her death,......