Blakeman v. Sherwood
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Debt on a probate bond ; tried in the superior court on the general issue, with notice, before Park, I The breach claimed was the neglect of the defendant as administrator of the estate of Emeline Sherwood, to inventory certain property alleged to belong to the estate.
Read the full summary
Debt on a probate bond ; tried in the superior court on the general issue, with notice, before Park, I The breach claimed was the neglect of the defendant as administrator of the estate of Emeline Sherwood, to inventory certain property alleged to belong to the estate. The allegation of the declaration with regard to the parties for whose benefit the suit was brought was as follows:—“ And this suit is brought for the special use and benefit of Horace Ogden, Hezekiah Ogden, Caroline Banks and John Banks, (husband and wife,) Angeline Ogden and Sally Ogden, all of said town of Fairfield, who are…
1Opinion of the Court
Hinman, O. J.
Previous to the statute of 1848, requiring *328the plaintiff in actions on prohate bonds to set forth for whose special benefit the action is prosecuted, and how such persons are interested in the same, and how the act or neglect of the defendant has injured their rights or affected their interests, this action would have been held to be properly brought and correctly disposed of by the superior court. The case of Minor v. Mead, 3 Conn., 289, is identical in principle with the case as it would then have stood, and that case has been acted upon as established law ever since. Rowland…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Minor v. MeadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1820
- Rowland v. IsaacsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. ThresherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1904
- State Ex Rel. Raskin v. SchachatSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- McNabb v. WixomNevada Supreme Court · 1871