Kellogg v. Johnson

38 Conn. 269
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided August 15, 1871·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Park, J.

It appears in this case that the administrator, on the 7th day of April, 1868, in pursuance of a verbal order of the court of probate, which was perfected and made a formal [271] order on the 28th day of December, 1869, made distribution of the estate in question to the persons that the court of probate found were the heirs at law of the deceased, and entitled to receive the same. This order of the court of probate has never been reversed, but it now remains in full force, and we think it furnishes full protection to the administrator, and a conclusive answer to this suit on the probate bond, until it shall be regularly set aside on appeal taken from the order to the Superior Court. "We think this view of the case is fully sustained by the following cases: Davenport v. Richards, 16 Conn., 310; Gates v. Treat, 17 id., 388; Bissel v. Bissel, 24 id., 241.

We advise a judgment in favor of the defendants.

In this opinion the other judges concurred; except Seymour, J., who having been consulted in the case when at the bar did not sit.

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

Kellogg v. Johnson, 38 Conn. 269 (Colo. 1871).

38 Conn. 269 (Kellogg v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Silverstein v. Laschever
970 A.2d 123 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2009)
Palmer v. Palmer
31 F. Supp. 861 (D. Connecticut, 1940)
Goodno v. Hotchkiss
237 F. 686 (D. Connecticut, 1916)
Reizer v. Mertz
125 Ill. App. 425 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1906)
Delehanty v. Pitkin
56 A. 881 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1904)
Ward, Admr. v. Ives
54 A. 730 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1903)
Hall v. Pierson
28 A. 544 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1893)