Bailey v. Estate of Dickinson

Connecticut Superior Court

Bailey v. Estate of Dickinson

13 Conn. Super. Ct. 440, 13 Conn. Supp. 440, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 80

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 31, 1945

DocketFile 9101

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 13 Conn. Super. Ct. 440 (Bailey v. Estate of Dickinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Estate of Dickinson, 13 Conn. Super. Ct. 440, 13 Conn. Supp. 440, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 80 (Colo. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

COMLEY, J.

This is an appeal from a decree admitting a will to probate. The appeal is taken jointly 'by twelve heirs-at' law of the decedent. The order of the Court of Probate grant' ing the appeal recites that “Esther M. Bailey, one of the heirs' at daw, having given a bond in the penal sum of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars (150.00) with sufficient surety to the State to prosecute such appeal to effect, said bond is approved (and) said appeal is allowed.”

The defendant moves to erase the appeal on the ground that the giving of a bond by only one of the twelve plaintiffs is not a sufficient compliance with Section 4990 of the General Sta' tutes, Revision of 1930, governing appeals from probate. This position would be sound, at least as to eleven of the plaintiffs, if their failure to furnish the bond made the appeal void as to •them. Such an omission, however, only makes the appeal void' able and the defect may be waived.

*441 “If the appellant is not a party aggrieved, or the cause is not, as to him, appealable, or the matter of the appeal is otherwise specially provided for by law, the appeal would be void. But the failure to give the bond, or to show upon the record that the appellant was aggrieved, or to give proper notice of the appeal, or to take it within the time for taking appeals, are irregularities which make the appeal voidable, not void, and are to be taken advantage of seasonably by a plea in abatement.” Fuller vs. Marvin, 107 Conn. 354, 357. See, also, Orcutt’s Appeal, 61 id. 378; Curtiss vs. Beardsley, 15 id. 518.

The same was true where a nonresident plaintiff failed to file a bond in an ordinary civil action, even prior to the enactment of Section 1409e of the 1939 Supplement to the General Statutes. Morse vs. Rankin, 51 Conn. 326; Ormsbee vs. Davis, 16 id. 567.

In the present case the defendant filed a plea in abatement on other grounds. He later withdrew the plea and has since filed his answer to the reasons of appeal so that the issues are now closed and the case is ready for trial. He has thus waived the defect in the bond and his motion to erase the appeal from the docket is, therefore, denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COMLEY, J.

This is an appeal from a decree admitting a will to probate. The appeal is taken jointly 'by twelve heirs-at' law of the decedent. The order of the Court of Probate grant' ing the appeal recites that “Esther M. Bailey, one of the heirs' at daw, having given a bond in the penal sum of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars (150.00) with sufficient surety to the State to prosecute such appeal to effect, said bond is approved (and) said appeal is allowed.”

The defendant moves to erase the appeal on the ground that the giving of a bond by only one of the twelve plaintiffs is not a sufficient compliance with Section 4990 of the General Sta' tutes, Revision of 1930, governing appeals from probate. This position would be sound, at least as to eleven of the plaintiffs, if their failure to furnish the bond made the appeal void as to •them. Such an omission, however, only makes the appeal void' able and the defect may be waived.

*441 “If the appellant is not a party aggrieved, or the cause is not, as to him, appealable, or the matter of the appeal is otherwise specially provided for by law, the appeal would be void. But the failure to give the bond, or to show upon the record that the appellant was aggrieved, or to give proper notice of the appeal, or to take it within the time for taking appeals, are irregularities which make the appeal voidable, not void, and are to be taken advantage of seasonably by a plea in abatement.” Fuller vs. Marvin, 107 Conn. 354, 357. See, also, Orcutt’s Appeal, 61 id. 378; Curtiss vs. Beardsley, 15 id. 518.

The same was true where a nonresident plaintiff failed to file a bond in an ordinary civil action, even prior to the enactment of Section 1409e of the 1939 Supplement to the General Statutes. Morse vs. Rankin, 51 Conn. 326; Ormsbee vs. Davis, 16 id. 567.

In the present case the defendant filed a plea in abatement on other grounds. He later withdrew the plea and has since filed his answer to the reasons of appeal so that the issues are now closed and the case is ready for trial. He has thus waived the defect in the bond and his motion to erase the appeal from the docket is, therefore, denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Conn. Super. Ct. 440, 13 Conn. Supp. 440, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-estate-of-dickinson-connsuperct-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack