From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hardy v. Scott

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Apr 4, 1941
127 Conn. 722 (Conn. 1941)

Opinion

Argued March 5, 1941

Decided April 4, 1941.

ACTION for the possession of real estate and other relief, brought to the Court of Common Pleas for New Haven County, where a demurrer to the complaint was overruled, Devlin, J., and the issues were tried to the jury before Pickett, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant. No error.

Franklin Coeller, for the appellant (defendant). William L. Beers, with whom, on the brief, was George E. Beers, for the appellee (plaintiff).


According to the complaint, the plaintiff deeded the property in question to the defendant and the latter's wife, Francener Scott, reserving a life use and on condition that the Scotts support him during his life, with reversion to the grantor on breach of the condition; Francener Scott died intestate about two years before the bringing of the action leaving the defendant as her sole heir-at-law and successor in title; the condition of the deed was broken by the defendant and the plaintiff was entitled to possession and title to the premises. The defendant demurred because neither the administrator, heirs or personal representatives of Francener were made parties. The demurrer was overruled and this action was assigned as error. Errors in the charge were also assigned but these are not before us since there is no finding in the record.

The demurrer admitted facts well pleaded. State's Attorney v. Selectmen of Branford, 59 Conn. 402, 411, 22 A. 336. It therefore admitted the allegation that the defendant was Francener's sole heir-at-law. This might have been so. General Statutes, § 5156. Title to intestate lands vests at once in the heirs "subject only to such rights as might arise out of the need to come upon them to satisfy debts and expenses of administration, and distribution was not necessary to confer title." Perkins v. August, 109 Conn. 452, 456, 146 A. 831; Bowen v. Morgillo, 127 Conn. 161, 168, 14 A.2d 724. Extraneous facts may exist which would disclose a deficiency of necessary parties but these could not be taken advantage of by demurrer.


Summaries of

Hardy v. Scott

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Apr 4, 1941
127 Conn. 722 (Conn. 1941)
Case details for

Hardy v. Scott

Case Details

Full title:PRINCE HARDY v. CONYER SCOTT

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Apr 4, 1941

Citations

127 Conn. 722 (Conn. 1941)
19 A.2d 420

Citing Cases

Wachtel v. Rosol

The complaint is tested on demurrer by the facts provable under its allegations. Benson v. Housing Authority,…

Vogel v. Bacus

The demurrer was upon the ground that the premises of which possession was sought were not those mentioned in…