Meigs v. Dimock
Supreme Court of Connecticut
in ERROR. This was a bill in chancery, preferred to the county court, by Anson Meigs, James Robinson and Samuel Robinson, against Sophia Dimock. The material facts alleged in the bill, and found by the court, were these.
Read the full summary
in ERROR. This was a bill in chancery, preferred to the county court, by Anson Meigs, James Robinson and Samuel Robinson, against Sophia Dimock. The material facts alleged in the bill, and found by the court, were these. On the 12th of June, 1808, Daniel Dimock, sen. then in life, conveyed, by deed of that date, certain pieces of land, of the value of 400 dollars, to bis son, Daniel Dimock, jun., also then in life, in consideration that the latter would support his father and his wife Thankful, during their lives. The son gave a bond of that date to his father, to furnish such support. He…
1Opinion of the CourtDaggett, J.
The order of the court of probate to sell, may be laid out of the case, because it has never been acted on-No proceedings by the administrator have been had. The sale by the creditors, was without a shadow of authority, and therefore, null and void. Daniel Dimock sen. got no title, by the deed of the creditors to him ; nor James Robinson, by the deed of Daniel Dimock sen. to him.
There is no colour for saying, that the facts found shew any fraud in the defendant. She is endeavouring to enforce her right of dower;- a right highly favoured in the law, and by our *463statute deemed superior to the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Fish v. HowlandNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
- Whiteley v. Central Trust Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Bellows v. ToddSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
- Grant v. SwankWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1914
- Bray v. BookerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.