Hart's Appeal From Probate

63 Conn. 575, 1894 Conn. LEXIS 87
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided February 8, 1894·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By the Court :

The question whether or not the account was an asset of the estate of Mr. Brainerd, was not a fact in issue under the pleadings; and the finding of the jury either way would not conclude any one.

*576 It was, however, a relevant fact because it might possibly have a bearing on the questions that were in issue, and especially on the claim of undue influence. In this aspect of the case it was the duty of the jury to consider it, and the judge so instructed the jury. The instruction was adapted to the issues raised by the pleadings, and was sufficient for the guidance of the jury in the ease before them.

There is no error. All concur. Opinion by Andrews, O. J., filed with the clerk of the Superior Court, Middlesex County.

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

Hart's Appeal From Probate, 63 Conn. 575, 1894 Conn. LEXIS 87 (Colo. 1894).

63 Conn. 575 (Hart's Appeal From Probate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hart v. Brainerd
35 A. 776 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1896)