Legal Opinion
Caldwell v. Danforth
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 30, 1938PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
The only assignment of error is predicated on the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict which found that the instrument in question was not the will of Mrs. Hyde. The plaintiff claimed that Mrs. Hyde lacked testamentary capacity and that she was unduly influenced. The verdict being general, it should stand if it can be supported on either ground. Ziman v. Whitley, 110 Conn. 108, 147 Atl. 370.
The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: Mrs. Hyde came to this country from Canada when she was eighteen years old, was twice married and childless. She survived the death of her…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ziman v. WhitleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
- Burr v. HartySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Bradbury v. City of South NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1907
- Canfield v. SheketoffSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Leblanc v. GrilloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
- Corey v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Jackson v. WallerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
- State v. DionneConnecticut Superior Court · 1962
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.