Shelton v. Hadlock
| Decision Date | 30 June 1892 |
| Citation | 62 Conn. 143,25 A. 483 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SHELTON et al. v. HADLOCK. |
Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; Thayer, Judge.
Action by Charles M. Shelton and another against Levi Hadlock to recover real estate. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
J. C. Chamberlain, N. W. Bishop, and C. M. Shelton, for appellants.
R. S. Pickett, for appellee.
This is a complaint in the nature of disseis in, brought to recover the possession of certain premises in the town of New Haven. The plaintiffs claim title to the premises by descent from their mother, Catherine A. Shelton, who died Intestate in August, 1866, leaving her husband, Charles T. Shelton, surviving her. He died in June, 1885. Mr. and Mrs. Shelton were married in 1835. They were then domiciled in New Haven, and remained domiciled there until their respective deaths at the dates above mentioned. Mrs. Shelton, at the time of her death, was the owner of the land in question, with other lands in New Haven, all of which was under mortgages executed by her and her husband to the amount of $8,500, and was also subject to the husband's estate by the curtesy. The defendant claims that at the time of Mrs. Shelton's death her interest in all of said lands was subject to certain debts legally provable against it to an amount much greater than the whole value of her interest; that such proceedings were had in the probate court in the district of New Haven that the whole of her interest was lawfully sold by the order of the probate court to satisfy said claims; and that by sundry mesne conveyances all the title to the tract of land in question has come to, and is now vested in, him. The estate which an heir takes by descent in the lands of an ancestor is not an absolute one; it is subject to all the debts or claims which in law or equity may be proved against it. If there are no debts or claims chargeable against the real estate, then the heir takes the whole; but, if the amount of such claims is greater than the value of all the real estate, then the heir has nothing. In any given ease, (as, for instance, the present one,) where a party claims to hold the land of an ancestor against the heir by virtue of a sale to satisfy such debts, he must establish the fact that such debts existed, and that all the proceedings required to sequester the land of the ancestor for their payment were had. The defendant insists that he has established the existence of debts against the estate of Mrs. Shelton, and the regularity and legality of all the proceedings by which her land was sold to pay those debts. He produced on the trial copies from the probate records in the district of New Haven, by which it appears that administration was duly granted on the intestate estate of Catherine A. Shelton; that appraisers were appointed, who returned an appraisal and inventory of her whole estate at $170, all of which was real estate, which appraisal was accepted by the court; that the estate was represented insolvent, and that commissioners were appointed, who made return that they had allowed claims against the estate to the amount of $1,459.03, which return of their doings was received and accepted by the court, and made a part of its records; that the court found the debts to exceed the personal estate, and that have estate was insolvent, and ordered all her real estate to be sold to pay the debts; and that, pursuant to such order, the real estate was sold to one Messen a Clark, from whom the defendant derives his title to the same. No evidence out side the commissioners' report, which was offered by the plaintiffs in connection with the rest of the probate records, was introduced or offered to show the nature or character of the claims allowed by the commissioners, or when or under what circumstances they were contracted, or were claimed before the commissioners to have been contracted; and it is found that the plaintiffs had no actual notice of the probate proceedings, or of the conveyances by which the title came to the defendant, until after their father's death.
The superior court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs appeal to this court, and allege various reasons of appeal, all of which may be included in the answer to one question, did the court of probate have jurisdiction to order the sale of Mrs. Shelton's real estate? If it did, the judgment is right; otherwise there is error. The plaintiffs make this the controlling question in their brief. They say: "Upon the validity of the decree of that court [that is, the court of probate] ordering the sale, the defendant must stand, if stand he does." And their whole argument stands or falls upon the correctness of this statement. Jurisdiction, as applied to a court, means the right of exercising the functions of a legal tribunal. The power to bear and determine a cause is jurisdiction. The statutes of this state have committed the settlement of the estates of deceased persons exclusively to the courts of probate. A section of the statutes commands that, "when any person shall die intestate, the court of pro-hate in the district in which the deceased last dwelt shall grant administration of the estate." Other sections point out and provide for the several steps that must be taken, so that the estate shall be settled in a due and orderly manner,—as the appointment of appraisers, and their return of the inventory of the estate, and the duty of the court relative to such inventory; and, if the estate is represented insolvent, the appointment of commissioners, the duty of the commissioners, and how they are to proceed in its performance, their return of their doings to the court, and the proceedings of the court upon such return,—to the end that, in case the debts exceed the amount of the personal property, the real estate may be ordered to he sold to pay the excess. Mrs. Shelton last dwelt in the probate district of New Haven. She died there intestate. The probate court in that district had jurisdiction, by the express command of the statutes, to settle her estate. A comparison of the several steps taken by that court in the settlement of her estate, as they appear in the finding of facts, with the several provisions of the statutes to which reference is made, shows that each of these steps was authorized by some statute. That court, then, in making all such orders as were necessary in the ordinary settlement of the estate, was acting within its jurisdiction. The decrees of a court of probate on matters within its jurisdiction are as conclusive as the decisions of any other court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodno v. Hotchkiss
... ... Pitkin, 76 ... Conn. 412, 416, 56 A. 881; Dickinson v. Hayes, 31 ... Conn. 417; Mix's Appeal, 35 Conn. 121, 122, 95 Am.Dec ... 222; Shelton v. Hadlock, 62 Conn. 143, 153, 25 A ... 483; Bissell v. Bissell, 24 Conn. 241, 246; ... Fortune v. Buck, 23 Conn. 1; Gates v ... Treat, ... ...
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven v. United States, s. 673
...$1,700,000. 2. The District Court concluded that Connecticut probate courts are not courts of records (but see Shelton v. Hadlock, 62 Conn. 143, 25 A. 483, and 1 Locke & Kohn, Connecticut Probate Practice 30 (1951), that its decrees are without legal effect in the State's higher courts, and......
-
LaReau v. Reincke
...presented to it. Brown v. Cato, 147 Conn. 418, 422, 162 A.2d 175; Mazzei v. Cantales, 142 Conn. 173, 175, 112 A.2d 205; Shelton v. Hadlock, 62 Conn. 143, 151, 25 A. 483. ' Appellate jurisdiction is derived from the constitutional or statutory provisions by which it is created, and can be ac......
-
Palmer v. Palmer, 3864.
...was in New London is most persuasive. The probate decrees so finding, even if not conclusive, have prima facie force, Shelton v. Hadlock, 62 Conn. 143, 152, 25 A. 483. They have strong support from various material appearing in the probate records such as the allegations or recitals of all ......