Gold v. Judson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate for the district of Bridgeport, passed in January, 1851, or during distribution of the estate of David Judson, deceased. The decree appealed from was as follows: “Estate of David Judson, late of Huntington, in said district, deceased.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate for the district of Bridgeport, passed in January, 1851, or during distribution of the estate of David Judson, deceased. The decree appealed from was as follows: “Estate of David Judson, late of Huntington, in said district, deceased. Whereas it appears from the settlement of the administration account with said estate, that there is remaining for distribution in the hands of the administrator with the will annexed, the sum of one hundred and seventeen dollars, fifty-seven cents, in promissory notes, and six thousand, two hundred and…
1Opinion of the CourtEllsworth, J.
We think the order of the probate court *622is erroneous, and should be set aside: the error is, in excluding the appellant, Caroline E. Gold, from an equal share in the residuum of David Judson's estate.
The language of the will, giving this residuum, is as follows: “I give to the heirs of my brother Roswell Judson, deceased, the heirs of my sister Nancy Lockwood, the heirs of my brother Agur Judson, the heirs of my sister Hannah Sterling and the heirs of my sister Sally Sterling, the residue of my estate, to be equally divided between said heirs, each individual alluded to having an equal…
2Cited by37 opinions
- Doe v. ConsidineSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Wetmore v. . ParkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Scott v. WestWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Leake v. WatsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
- Wolfe v. HathewaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.