Hatch v. Straight
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate for the district of New-Milford, allowing to Henry A. Straight, the appellee, a full distributary share of the estate of Henry Straight, deceased. The cause was tried at Litchfield, February term, 1819, before Edmond, Smith and Gould, Js. The appellants were children, and heirs at law, of said Henry Straight. The appellee was his son.
Read the full summary
THIS was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate for the district of New-Milford, allowing to Henry A. Straight, the appellee, a full distributary share of the estate of Henry Straight, deceased. The cause was tried at Litchfield, February term, 1819, before Edmond, Smith and Gould, Js. The appellants were children, and heirs at law, of said Henry Straight. The appellee was his son. On the 17th of March, 1812, Henry Straight executed and delivered to the appellee a deed, conveying to him one equal undivided half of all the lands and buildings, which the grantor then owned, excepting a…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
The declaration made by Henry Straight, posterior to the delivery of the deed, cannot be admitted to vary its legal operation. It has been determined, that parol evidence of a father’s declaration will not be allowed to bar a child of her orphanage share. Fawkner v. Watts, Atk. 407. And it is extremely obvious, that his declaration diminishing the shares of his other children, cannot possess a higher effect.
The Statute of Connecticut relative to advanced portions, (a) is almost a literal transcript of 22 and 23 Car. 2. c. 10. usually denominated the statute of distributions.…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Belden v. SeymourSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Ellis v. NewellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Bruce v. SlempSupreme Court of Virginia · 1886
- McClanahan v. McClanahanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1892
- Newell v. NewellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1841
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.