State v. Donahue

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtTHAYER, J.
Citation82 Conn. 308,73 A. 763
PartiesSTATE EX REL. MORIARTY v. DONAHUE et al.
Decision Date20 July 1909
73 A. 763
82 Conn. 308

STATE EX REL. MORIARTY
v.
DONAHUE et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 20, 1909.


Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; William L. Bennett, Judge.

Action by the State, on relation of Nellie Donahue Moriarty, as administratrix, etc., against Mary Ann Donahue, as administratrix, and others, on probate bonds for failure of defendant administratrix to pay plaintiff a distributive share of the estate of Bridget Donahue. From an order sustaining a demurrer to defendants' answers and overruling others, and from a judgment accordingly, all the parties, except defendant Seery, appeal. Affirmed.

John O'Neill and Finton J. Phelan, for plaintiff.

Edward L. Seery, for defendants.

THAYER, J. On February 21, 1906, the defendant Mary A. Donahue was appointed administratrix de bonis non of the estate of her mother, Bridget Donahue, and gave a probate bond, with the defendant Seery as surety, for the faithful discharge of her duties. On August 16, 1906, having been ordered by the court of probate to sell all the real estate of the deceased, she gave another bond, with the defendant Grelle as surety, "to secure the distribution of the assets of said sale according to law." On September 19, 1908, she settled her administration account, which showed that there was then in her hands in cash to be distributed the sum of $23,171.80. Upon her application the court of probate found that the only persons entitled to the estate at the time of the death of Bridget were her five children and only heirs at law, and that each of these was entitled to, and that there should be distributed

73 A. 764

to them, respectively, one equal one-fifth share of the estate remaining in the hands of the defendant administratrix. One of these children was Thomas Donahue, who was living at the time of his mother's death, but died shortly thereafter. The defendant Mary A. Donahue neglected to pay over the one-fifth of Bridget's estate to the estate of Thomas. This action is brought for the benefit of Nellie D. Moriarty, the administratrix of his estate. These facts are alleged in the complaint in one count, and the defendant Mary A. Donahue, administratrix of Bridget's estate, and her sureties on the two bonds are made parties defendants.

The defendants filed separate answers. That of Mary A. Donahue alleges, in substance, the following facts: The entire personal estate received by her as administratrix of Bridget's estate amounted to $2,345.50, and was required for, and actually expended in, the payment of the debts and expenses of settlement of the estate. At the time of her death Bridget was possessed of an undivided one-half interest in five pieces of land in Waterbury, which she had inherited from her brother Patrick Coyle. After her death the court of probate distributed to her estate as her share of her brother's estate two of these pieces of land. Prior to such distribution, but after her death, her son Thomas, above mentioned, mortgaged his interest in the entire five pieces of land to one Downey, who later foreclosed the mortgage against the administratrix and heirs at law and representatives of Thomas; the judgment providing that, unless the defendant in that action should pay to Downey $4,009.13 on or before the first Monday in July, 1908, they should be foreclosed of all interest in the mortgaged premises, and they have never paid the amount found due or appealed from the judgment. On February 1, 1907, pursuant to the order of the court of probate above mentioned, Mary A. Donahue as administratrix sold all the real estate which belonged to Bridget's estate for $23,000. The defendant Seery in his answer sets up substantially the same facts as the defendant Donahue, but in two defenses. The first repeats the allegations relating to the real estate. The second alleges, in substance, that the personal property amounted to only $2,345.50, and has been fully accounted for by the administratrix to the acceptance of the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Brownell v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 24 Luglio 1956
    ...Hewitt's Appeal, 53 Conn. 24, 37, 1 A. 815; Ward v. Ives, 75 [143 Conn. 672] Conn. 598, 601, 54 A. 730; State ex rel. Moriarty v. Donahue, 82 Conn. 308, 311, 73 A. 763; Cooley v. Pigott, 84 Conn. 323, 325, 80 A. 92; Phelan v. Elbin, 84 Conn. 208, 212, 79 A. 187; Ward v. Ives, 91 Conn. 12, 1......
  • Bishop v. Bordonaro, No. 7360
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 19 Settembre 1989
    ...is not relevant to this appeal. If a bond was not filed before the conveyance, it would void the sale; State ex rel. Moriarty v. Donahue, 82 Conn. 308-13, 73 A. 763 (1909); not the order of sale. There is no error on the plaintiffs' first In their second claim, the plaintiffs argue that the......
  • American Indemnity Co. v. Noble, (No. 252-3456.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 14 Dicembre 1921
    ...proceeds of the sale of real estate made by the guardian if a special bond is required as a condition of the sale. Moriarty v. Donahue, 82 Conn. 308, 73 Atl. 763, 135 Am. St. Rep. 273; State ex rel. Mount v. Steele, 21 Ind. 207, 83 Am. Dec. 346; People, to Use of Sterling, v. Huffman, 182 I......
  • Bowne v. Ide
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 13 Giugno 1929
    ...not covered by the bond of the administrator," the statute requires a sufficient bond on making the order of sale. Moriarty v. Donahue, 82 Conn. 308, 73 A. 763, 135 Am. St. Rep. 273. The order of the court was not made under this statute which concerns real estate, but under section 5034, w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Brownell v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 24 Luglio 1956
    ...Hewitt's Appeal, 53 Conn. 24, 37, 1 A. 815; Ward v. Ives, 75 [143 Conn. 672] Conn. 598, 601, 54 A. 730; State ex rel. Moriarty v. Donahue, 82 Conn. 308, 311, 73 A. 763; Cooley v. Pigott, 84 Conn. 323, 325, 80 A. 92; Phelan v. Elbin, 84 Conn. 208, 212, 79 A. 187; Ward v. Ives, 91 Conn. 12, 1......
  • Bishop v. Bordonaro, No. 7360
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 19 Settembre 1989
    ...is not relevant to this appeal. If a bond was not filed before the conveyance, it would void the sale; State ex rel. Moriarty v. Donahue, 82 Conn. 308-13, 73 A. 763 (1909); not the order of sale. There is no error on the plaintiffs' first In their second claim, the plaintiffs argue that the......
  • American Indemnity Co. v. Noble, (No. 252-3456.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 14 Dicembre 1921
    ...proceeds of the sale of real estate made by the guardian if a special bond is required as a condition of the sale. Moriarty v. Donahue, 82 Conn. 308, 73 Atl. 763, 135 Am. St. Rep. 273; State ex rel. Mount v. Steele, 21 Ind. 207, 83 Am. Dec. 346; People, to Use of Sterling, v. Huffman, 182 I......
  • Bowne v. Ide
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 13 Giugno 1929
    ...not covered by the bond of the administrator," the statute requires a sufficient bond on making the order of sale. Moriarty v. Donahue, 82 Conn. 308, 73 A. 763, 135 Am. St. Rep. 273. The order of the court was not made under this statute which concerns real estate, but under section 5034, w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT