McDermott v. McDermott
Decision Date | 30 November 1921 |
Citation | 115 A. 638,97 Conn. 31 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | McDERMOTT v. McDERMOTT. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.
Suit by Michael McDermott against Mary McDermott to compel defendant to cause an alleged undelivered deed of real estate owned by the plaintiff to be erased from the land records, and requiring the premises to be conveyed to the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff, with appeal by defendant. No error.
Charles J. Martin, of New Haven, for appellant.
James D. Hart, of New Haven, for appellee.
The defendant submits her appeal upon the single point as to whether or not the plaintiff, by his acts and conduct ratified the act of the defendant in placing the deed on record of the premises which the plaintiff seeks, by this action, to have conveyed to him. The defendant's counsel rightly says that the corrections of the finding are not indispensable to the success of her claim of ratification except the correction of paragraph 43, and all of the motion to correct may well be disregarded, as either not well taken or as immaterial, except as to this paragraph, and this we propose considering at a later stage of the case.
The finding relates that the plaintiff executed a deed of certain premises, made to the defendant as grantee, but never delivered the same, and placed it among his private papers in a bureau drawer and locked the drawer. Afterward, in September, 1919, plaintiff learned that the defendant had taken the deed and placed it on the land records, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff. Immediately upon learning of this, the plaintiff made demand upon the defendant for the return of the deed; but defendant said she purposed holding this property. Prior to this time the plaintiff and defendant had been living together in these premises, and, upon defendant's refusal of plaintiff's demand, he moved from these premises, and has not since lived with the defendant. On October 3, 1919, the plaintiff caused a lis pendens to be placed on the land records, giving notice that he claimed title to the property. On October 23, 1919, he caused the present action to be instituted. In December, 1919, he filed his application in the superior court for the appointment of a receiver of the rents of the premises; but, at the suggestion of the court, a bond in lieu thereof was given by the defendant. On March 30, 1921, the plaintiff again brought his application for the appointment of a receiver for the rents, and on March 31, 1921, the court passed an order appointing such receiver. Since its institution the plaintiff has duly pressed this action clear up to the trial.
The defendant assigns as error this finding that the plaintiff did not intend to, and did not in fact, ratify the taking of the deed in making these statements to the painter, the water company, the savings bank, and the insurance firm; and the defendant insists that the finding, thus corrected, will present a clear case of ratification of the possession by the defendant of this deed and of these premises.
Whether a grantor intended to make delivery of a deed is a question of fact; intention is a mental process, and of necessity it must be proved by the statement or acts of the person whose act is being scrutinized. When the question at issue was whether one had turned over his salary to his wife as a gift, we said:
Fox v. Shanley, 94 Conn. 350, 362, 109 A. 249, 254.
And in Meriden Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Miller, 88 Conn. 157, 162, 90 A. 228, 229, we said:
And in Humiston v. Preston, 66 Conn. 579, 34 A. 544, we held-where the question of the delivery of a deed depended upon the intent with which an act was performed-that the question was one of fact, and the decision of the trial court thereon was not subject to review on appeal. Wiley v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., 89 Conn. 35, 39, 92 A. 678; Kronfeld v. Missal, 87 Conn. 491, 493, 494, 89 A. 95; Saltzsieder v. Saltzsieder, 219 N.Y. 523, 530, 114 N.E. 856.
The intention with which these statements were made by the plaintiff, whether intending to ratify the conveyance to the defendant or not, was a question of fact, and the evidence amply justified the trial court in finding that the plaintiff did not intend to ratify this conveyance.
If the case were to be disposed of without the further finding of that part of paragraph 43 which recites that in these statements the plaintiff did not in fact ratify the conveyance to defendant, the facts found would lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not ratify, whether the conclusion be regarded as one of law or fact, or of mixed law and fact. If ratification be regarded as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil and Fuel Co., Inc.
... ... Commission on Civil Rights, 140 Conn. 537, 543, 102 A.2d 366 [1953]; McDermott v. McDermott, 97 Conn. 31, 35, 115 A. 638 ... Page 994 ... [1921]." Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation v. Mauro, supra, 171 Conn. 186, 368 ... ...
-
Community Collaborative of Bridgeport, Inc. v. Ganim
...one of fact and not reviewable unless the conclusion of ratification, drawn from the facts, is plainly erroneous." McDermott v. McDermott, 97 Conn. 31, 37, 115 A. 638 (1921). Maya asserts that, at the time of the March 20, 1996 meeting, the CCB members had full knowledge of the pending acti......
-
State v. Jaynes, 13074
... ... Holden & J. Daly, Connecticut Evidence (2d Ed.1988) § 93a, citing McDermott v. McDermott, 97 Conn. 31, 37-38, 115 A. 638 (1921); Engel v. Conti, 78 Conn. 351, 354, 62 A. 210 (1905) ... Here, the defendant ... ...
-
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Mauro, MERRITT-CHAPMAN
...be reached.' International Brotherhood v. Commission on Civil Rights, 140 Conn. 537, 543, 102 A.2d 366, 369; McDermott v. McDermott, 97 Conn. 31, 35, 115 A. 638. It cannot be held that the court was in error in concluding upon all the evidence that the intention of Mauro, objectively manife......