McFarland v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

McFarland v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

362 A.2d 834, 168 Conn. 411, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 968

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedApril 29, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 362 A.2d 834 (McFarland v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McFarland v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 362 A.2d 834, 168 Conn. 411, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 968 (Colo. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case arose as an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court for the district of Westport which approved and allowed a final account of a trustee and ordered distribution of the trust corpus as set forth in that account. In a detailed memorandum of decision the trial court (Saden, J.) discussed the well-settled, controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the facts which it found. Our examination of the record discloses no material changes which should be made in the court’s finding and no harmful error in any ruling of the court made in the course of the hearing on the appeal.

The trial court’s memorandum of decision is reported in 32 Conn. Sup. 20, 337 A.2d 1, and we adopt it as a sufficient statement of the reasons why the plaintiffs cannot prevail on the appeal to this court. Since we find no error on the plaintiffs’ appeal, it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the cross appeal filed by the named defendant.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

This case arose as an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court for the district of Westport which approved and allowed a final account of a trustee and ordered distribution of the trust corpus as set forth in that account. In a detailed memorandum of decision the trial court (Saden, J.) discussed the well-settled, controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the facts which it found. Our examination of the record discloses no material changes which should be made in the court’s finding and no harmful error in any ruling of the court made in the course of the hearing on the appeal.

The trial court’s memorandum of decision is reported in 32 Conn. Sup. 20, 337 A.2d 1, and we adopt it as a sufficient statement of the reasons why the plaintiffs cannot prevail on the appeal to this court. Since we find no error on the plaintiffs’ appeal, it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the cross appeal filed by the named defendant.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 A.2d 834, 168 Conn. 411, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfarland-v-chase-manhattan-bank-na-conn-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack