In re Thomas

• Decision Date: 19 December 1911
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: In re THOMAS.

81 A. 972

85 Conn. 50

In re THOMAS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 19, 1911

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Application by Edwin S Thomas, conservator of the estate of Edward A Spencer, for authority to compromise a claim. From a judgment of the superior court granting the application and reversing the action of the court of probate conditionally approving the application, the party aggrieved appeals. Affirmed.

William B. Stoddard and Robert C. Stoddard, for appellant.

Frank S. Bishop and George W. A. Meyers, for appellee.

RORABACK, J.

This is an application by one Edwin S. Thomas, conservator of the estate of Edward A. Spencer, for authority to compromise and settle a claim of $1,010.74 by a cash payment of $700.74. The court of probate for the district of Milford denied this application, but stated that it would approve of a compromise of this claim for $200. The conservator appealed to the superior court. Before the reasons of appeal were filed in the superior court, a demurrer was interposed, which was overruled. The parties then went to trial in the superior court on issues raised upon the reasons of appeal, and judgment was rendered as hereinbefore stated. The appeal to this court assigned error in sustaining the demurrer and because judgment was rendered upon the facts set forth in the finding.

With all the facts before us, it is unnecessary to rule upon the effect of the decision upon the demurrer. Mechanics' Bank v. Woodward, 74 Conn. 689, 691, 51 A. 1084. The finding shows that prior to the appointment of Mr. Thomas as conservator Mr. Spencer became involved in litigation as to the ownership of a sandy beach on Long Island Sound in the town of Milford. Spencer, who was entirely without means other than his land, the title of which was then in controversy, made an oral agreement with George E. Beers, a member of the New Haven county bar, that, if he would act as his counsel, he would pay him in land. Three cases growing out of the contention over Spencer's land reached this court, and are reported, respectively, as Spencer v. Merwin, 80 Conn. 330, 68 A. 370 Merwin v. Backer, 80 Conn. 338, 68 A. 373, and Roberts v. Merwin, 80 Conn. 347, 68 A. 377. Beers appeared as counsel for Spencer in these cases, and at their termination presented a claim for his fees and disbursements therein. He also included in this bill a claim for other matters in which he represented Spencer. In this connection the trial court finds that Thomas, the conservator, in an attempt to put an end to the litigation and expenses of Spencer, stated to Beers that he would approve his bill for the amount of $700.74 in cash, and this Beers agreed to accept, to get Spencer out of his trouble and litigation that the amount of this bill, $700.74, payable in cash, is fair and reasonable; that it is for the best interest of the ward and his estate that this amount should be paid by way of compromise and settlement in accordance with the application of the conservator to the court of probate; that it is the intention of Beers to bring suit upon the original amount of his claim if a compromise is not effected; and that it is probable that, if such suit were brought, he would recover a larger sum than the amount named in the compromise, which suit would involve further expense to the estate of Spencer.

Chapter 203 of the Public Acts of 1903 provides that " the court of probate, after public notice and hearing, may authorize executors, guardians, conservators, administrators and trustees in insolvency to compromise and settle any doubtful or disputed claims or actions or any appeal from probate in favor of or against the...