Benedict v. Chase
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Act con for the recovery of money at law and for equitable relief; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County. The plaintiffs were Cornelia M. Benedict, Amelia C. Benedict and Charlotte B. Hill, widow and two of the children of Charles Benedict, deceased. The defendants were the ad ministrators of his estate and minor heirs.
Read the full summary
Act con for the recovery of money at law and for equitable relief; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County. The plaintiffs were Cornelia M. Benedict, Amelia C. Benedict and Charlotte B. Hill, widow and two of the children of Charles Benedict, deceased. The defendants were the ad ministrators of his estate and minor heirs. The complaint alleged that at the time of his death, on the 30th of October, 1881, the intestate was liable as endorser of a large amount of notes and other paper of Mitchell, Yance & Co., a corporation located in the city of New York, of which he was a large…
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
There are two facts essential to the plaintiffs’ right to recover: 1st, that Benedict’s estate was in peril; 2d, that it was relieved of that peril by the plaintiffs. The finding does not state either fact in so many words. Are they in effect stated ? If so, we can dispose of the case; if not, we must remand the case for a more specific finding.
There are two considerations which incline us to regard the finding as sufficient. 1. The case has been heard upon its merits without objection from either party, or suggestions from the court. 2. Both parties have assumed that both facts exist, and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Palmer v. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
- Cross v. Hudon, No. Cv89-0360861 (Mar. 31, 1995)Connecticut Superior Court · 1995
- Sophia Miller's Appeal From ProbateConnecticut Superior Court · 1956
- Palmer v. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1971