Greenwich Trust Co. v. Converse
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Suit to determine the construction of a clause of the will of Jessie M. Converse, of Greenwich, deceased, and the discretionary powers, if any, of the plaintiff, a successor trustee, brought to and reserved by the Superior Court in Fairfield County, Maltbie, /., upon the allegations of the complaint, admitted to be true, for the advice of this court.
Read the full summary
Suit to determine the construction of a clause of the will of Jessie M. Converse, of Greenwich, deceased, and the discretionary powers, if any, of the plaintiff, a successor trustee, brought to and reserved by the Superior Court in Fairfield County, Maltbie, /., upon the allegations of the complaint, admitted to be true, for the advice of this court. On September 3d, 1912, Jessie M. Converse of Greenwich died leaving a will, of which the fifth paragraph provided in part as follows: “I give and bequeath unto my executor hereinafter named whom I constitute as trustee for the purpose, the sum of…
1DissentWheeler, C. J.
I should not dissent in this case were I not of the opinion that the majority opinion in effect overrules Security Co. v. Snow, 70 Conn. 288, 39 Atl. 153, and Whitaker v. McDowell, 82 Conn. 195, 72 Atl. 938, and misconceives the decision in Russell v. Hartley, 83 Conn. 654, 78 Atl. 320. An analysis of these cases will, I think, show that we have not varied either in the underlying principle of these decisions, nor in their application, and that Security Co. v. Snow, and Whitaker v. McDowell, supra, control the decision of the case at bar, as the counsel have practically conceded, provided the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Dillard v. DillardSupreme Court of Virginia · 1899
- Russell v. HartleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
- French v. Northern Trust Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1902
- Security Co. v. SnowSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- Hooker v. GoodwinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1917
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.