Speyers v. Manchester

Connecticut Superior Court

Speyers v. Manchester

13 Conn. Super. Ct. 296, 13 Conn. Supp. 296, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 44

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 2, 1945

DocketFile 64247

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Conn. Super. Ct. 296 (Speyers v. Manchester) 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

Speyers v. Manchester, 13 Conn. Super. Ct. 296, 13 Conn. Supp. 296, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 44 (Colo. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

*297 O’SULLIVAN, J.

This case came to the Superior Court by virtue of an appeal taken by the plaintiffs from certain orders of the Probate Court for the District of New Haven. It eventually found its way to the Supreme Court of Errors which, by finding error in the action of the Superior Court, made possible a financial gain to the plaintiffs of a sum in excess of $10,000. Counsel have now requested an allowance for services and expenses incurred in presenting the case.

The litigation did not originate in the Superior Court. It was not an action to construe a will, even though the will had to be construed to test the validity of the orders complained of.

The court is powerless to grant the motion for two reasons: first, because no statute permits, and, inasmuch as the court, on appeal, was not sitting as a court of equity, no inherent power is available for use, and secondly, because the Superior Court was sitting as a probate court and if fees could possibly be allowed, the probate court must, in the first instance, order the allowance.

As to the additional request for the $100 allowance for unusual expenses, no objection being raised against such request, such sum is ordered to be taxed as costs.

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

*297 O’SULLIVAN, J.

This case came to the Superior Court by virtue of an appeal taken by the plaintiffs from certain orders of the Probate Court for the District of New Haven. It eventually found its way to the Supreme Court of Errors which, by finding error in the action of the Superior Court, made possible a financial gain to the plaintiffs of a sum in excess of $10,000. Counsel have now requested an allowance for services and expenses incurred in presenting the case.

The litigation did not originate in the Superior Court. It was not an action to construe a will, even though the will had to be construed to test the validity of the orders complained of.

The court is powerless to grant the motion for two reasons: first, because no statute permits, and, inasmuch as the court, on appeal, was not sitting as a court of equity, no inherent power is available for use, and secondly, because the Superior Court was sitting as a probate court and if fees could possibly be allowed, the probate court must, in the first instance, order the allowance.

As to the additional request for the $100 allowance for unusual expenses, no objection being raised against such request, such sum is ordered to be taxed as costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Conn. Super. Ct. 296, 13 Conn. Supp. 296, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speyers-v-manchester-connsuperct-1945.