Rich v. Dixon

212 A.2d 417, 153 Conn. 52, 1965 Conn. LEXIS 398
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJuly 13, 1965
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 212 A.2d 417 (Rich v. Dixon) 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
Rich v. Dixon, 212 A.2d 417, 153 Conn. 52, 1965 Conn. LEXIS 398 (Colo. 1965).

Opinion

House, J.

This action arises out of an automobile accident on the Massachusetts Turnpike on June 9, 1960. The plaintiff, riding as a passenger in a car which he owned, was injured, and the defendant’s decedent, who was driving the car, was killed, when the car veered off the road into a bridge abutment. The suit, seeking recovery for the injuries which the plaintiff received, was instituted against the defendant in her capacity as temporary administratrix of the decedent’s estate. The complaint alleged and the parties stipulated that written notice of the claim for damages was given to the defendant, as temporary administratrix, prior to the service of the complaint. It is not alleged, nor does it appear, that letters of administration have been granted on the estate as provided by § 45-195 of the General Statutes. 1

*55 The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant and denied the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict. It is from the judgment rendered on the latter motion that this appeal is taken. Practice Book §§ 605, 600; Felix v. Hall-Brooke Sanitarium, 140 Conn. 496, 498, 101 A.2d 500.

The memorandum of decision on the motion to set aside the verdict indicates that the court directed a verdict because the plaintiff failed to establish negligence on the part of the defendant’s decedent and because this action cannot be maintained against a temporary administratrix.

The appointment of a temporary administrator is authorized by General Statutes § 45-197. 2 The *56 powers and duties of a temporary administrator are set forth in General Statutes § 45-198. 3 We have not previously had occasion to interpret these two statutes or determine the limits of the authority of a temporary administrator in the circumstances presented by this appeal.

Since the tort which is the subject of the suit is alleged to have been committed in Massachusetts, the law of that state created such right as the plaintiff may have, but the law of Connecticut where the suit is brought determines the remedy. Ormsby v. Chase, 290 U.S. 387, 388, 54 S. Ct. 211, 78 L. Ed. 378; Orr v. Ahern, 107 Conn. 174, 176, 139 A. 691; see Bohenek v. Niedswiecki, 142 Conn. 278, 283, 113 A.2d 509. The basic question before us is whether this plaintiff may bind the estate of the decedent by notice of a claim to, and suit against, a tempo *57 rary administratrix of the tort-feasor’s estate appointed pursuant to the authority of General Statutes §§ 45-197 and 45-198, or whether such notice of claim must be given to, and suit brought against, an administrator who has been granted general letters of administration pursuant to § 45-195.

Our general law governing the process of administration of the estates of deceased persons is contained in chapters 786 through 796 of the General Statutes. The statutes included within these chapters provide a logical and definite procedure whereby the property of a decedent is taken into the custody of the law by placing it in the hands of an exechtor or administrator who, under the control and supervision of the Probate Court, inventories and marshals the assets, receives claims within such period of time as the court may fix, pays the expenses of administration, inheritance taxes and claims and ultimately distributes the remainder to those entitled thereto. 2 Locke & Kohn, Conn. Probate Practice § 261. Consequently, in construing the relevant statutes, we must not only consider them in the light of their history, their language, the purpose they were designed to serve and the circumstances surrounding their enactment but, in determining their purpose and scope, make every part operative and harmonious with every other part so far as is possible. Feldman v. Administrator, 138 Conn. 724, 727, 89 A.2d 210. “We are called upon to look beyond the literal meaning of the words to the history of the law, its language, considered in all its parts, the mischief the law was designed to remedy, and the policy underlying it. Giammattei v. Egan, 135 Conn. 666, 668, 68 A.2d 129. We must look, also, to the basic policy as disclosed by pre-existing legislation and the circum *58 stances which brought about the enactment of the law under consideration. Cedar Island Improvement Assn. v. Clinton Electric Light & Power Co., 142 Conn. 359, 364, 114 A.2d 535.” Lee v. Lee, 145 Conn. 355, 358, 143 A.2d 154.

The language of General Statutes 45-197 and 45-198 is clear and specific. These sections contain restrictions and qualifications implicit in the statutory designation of “temporary administrator” not contained in § 45-195, which concerns the general administration of estates. Unlike the administrator of an estate appointed with general letters of administration pursuant to § 45-195, a temporary administrator may be appointed without notice. He may be appointed only if the Probate Court finds that “the granting of administration on . . . [the estate of a deceased person] or the probating of the will of such deceased . . . will be delayed, or that it is necessary for the protection of the estate of such deceased ... to hold and preserve the estate until the appointment of an administrator or . . . the probating of the will.” Implicit in this language is the concept that the temporary appointee is a mere custodian for the preservation of assets “until the appointment of an administrator.” This interpretation is strengthened by the further provision that, if the Probate Court deems it more expedient, it may order any deputy sheriff or constable to take possession of the estate until the appointment of an administrator, executor or trustee.

When an administrator is appointed, legal title to the personal property of the decedent vests in him. Lynch v. Skelly, 138 Conn. 376, 379, 85 A.2d 251; Blodgett v. Bridgeport City Trust Co., 115 Conn. 127, 144, 161 A. 83. A temporary administrator, on the other hand, is only authorized by the statute *59 to take possession “to hold and preserve the estate.”

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

Related

Dillman v. Allen-Warren, No. X02-Cv-00-0167578s (Jul. 22, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 9426 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Shareamerica Inc. v. Ernst Young, No. Cv 93-0150132 S (Jul. 2, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 9951 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Rothman v. Pratt Whitney Aircraft, No. Cv 44 99 14 (Feb. 7, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1262-I (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Red Maple Properties v. Zoning Commission
610 A.2d 1238 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1992)
In re the Estate of Caron
23 V.I. 93 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 1987)
Miller v. United Technologies Corporation
515 A.2d 386 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1986)
Sagers v. Lee County Bank
473 A.2d 1239 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1983)
Halstead v. United States
535 F. Supp. 782 (D. Connecticut, 1982)
Gottesman v. Aetna Insurance
418 A.2d 944 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1979)
Gibson v. Fullin
374 A.2d 1061 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1977)
Schwarzschild v. Binsse
365 A.2d 1195 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1976)
Patch v. Stanley Works
448 F.2d 483 (Second Circuit, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 A.2d 417, 153 Conn. 52, 1965 Conn. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rich-v-dixon-conn-1965.