Prendergast v. Drew

• Decision Date: 30 July 1925
• Citation: 130 A. 75,103 Conn. 88
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: PRENDERGAST v. DREW ET AL.

130 A. 75

103 Conn. 88

PRENDERGAST v. DREW ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 30, 1925

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; George E. Hinman Judge.

Suit by William Prendergast against Margaret Drew and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

Frank Covello and Francis A. Pallotti, both of Hartford, for appellant.

Donald Gaffney, of New Britain, for appellees.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and BEACH, CURTIS, KEELER, and MALTBIE JJ.

WHEELER, C.J.

This action seeks to set aside a conveyance of three pieces of real estate executed by James Prendergast and delivered to his daughter Margaret under these circumstances. While Mr Prendergast was in sound mind and free from undue influence he, with the intention of making an absolute and unconditional conveyance, and without any understanding or agreement between himself and his daughter, Margaret, executed and delivered this conveyance upon the consideration of love and affection. Mr. Prendergast made this conveyance just before he was to undergo a serious operation whose results he feared. The operation was successful and he returned cured, to his home, 1150 Stanley street, which he had transferred by the said conveyance to Margaret. At the time of this conveyance he made other conveyances and transfers of his property to Margaret and to his wife. With the consent of Margaret he continued to occupy 1150 Stanley street, making the repairs, paying the taxes, and managing the property in like manner as before the conveyance. Shortly after Mr. Prendergast's return, Margaret offered to reconvey to her father, and at a subsequent date made another offer to reconvey the property so transferred to her, but he refused to accept such reconveyance. About January 1, 1924, Mr. Prendergast caused deeds to be prepared reconveying this property to him, and requested Margaret to make such reconveyance. From May 19, 1920, when this property was conveyed to her, Margaret considered and claimed that she was its absolute owner.

Mr. Prendergast died April 14, 1924, and on April 16, 1924, his son, John, was appointed and qualified as administrator. Subsequent to his appointment and prior to this action, the administrator refused, upon demand so to do, to bring an action to set aside the conveyance to Margaret. The trial court reached the conclusions, that James Prendergast was of sound mind at the time of this conveyance, and that it was not obtained or induced by fraud or undue influence on the part of Margaret, or any other person; that the conveyances were not given under any understanding or agreement rendering them other than absolute conveyances; that the conveyances were for a good and sufficient consideration; and that the conduct of Margaret in leaving her father, the grantor in the conveyance, in possession and enjoyment of 1150 Stanley street until his death, does not affect the status of the deeds.

Corrections of the finding are assigned among the errors, as to the mental capacity of Mr. Prendergast at the time of these conveyances, his intention in executing and delivering these, and their consideration, the fact that he did this uninduced by fraud or undue influence, and the fact that the conveyances were absolute. The assignments of error as to the corrections in the finding are " in finding without sufficient evidence to sustain the same," and as to the corrections by additions, " in refusing to find, as reasonably sustained by the weight and sufficiency of the evidence the facts," etc. These assignments are plainly bad. Pr. Book 1922, p. 309, § 11; Dexter Yarn Co. v. American Fabrics Co., 102 Conn. 529, ...