Legal Opinion

Thames Bank & Trust Co. v. Adams

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 12, 1939PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.

The parties are not in dispute as to the interpretation of this will and no sufficient reason appears for this reservation. An unappealed judgment of the Superior Court is conclusive of the issues involved. Greenwich Trust Co. v. Brixey, 117 Conn. 663, 664, 166 Atl. 918.

Elizabeth F. Lusk died in Norwich on March 3, 1875, leaving as her only heirs-at-law a son, William T. Lusk, and two grandchildren, William Hunt Adams and Arthur Graham Adams, children of a deceased daughter, Mary Lusk Adams. Her son has died leaving children and grandchildren. Her grandson William Hunt Adams has died leaving…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Hudson v. WadsworthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
  2. St. John v. DannSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
  3. Mahoney v. MahoneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  4. Peyton v. WehrhaneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
  5. Horton, Admr. v. UphamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Pond v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  2. Burley v. MaguireSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
  3. Congregational Home Missionary Society v. Thames Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API