Legal Opinion

Bradley v. Fenn

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 30, 1925PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

This action is brought by the selectmen of Thomaston under General Statutes, §1650, as amended by Chapter 114 of the Public Acts of 1921, to compel the son and grandsons of one Jane Fenn to contribute to her support from the time of the service of the complaint. There is no controversy that Jane Fenn is a poor person, between eighty and eighty-five years of age, and unable to support herself, with a settlement in Thomaston, and that in April, 1923, she was duly committed to the Connecticut Hospital for the Insane at Middletown, where she has since re mained. The cost of maintenance of said…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McClay v. WorrallNebraska Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Cunningham v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
  3. Inhabitants of Templeton v. StrattonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
  4. Fitzgerald v. DonoherNebraska Supreme Court · 1896

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Waterbury Savings Bank v. DanaherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
  2. Grievance Comm., Bar of New Haven County v. PayneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1941
  3. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
  4. Robert C. Buell & Co. v. DanaherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1941
  5. Hein v. HeinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1941

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

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

Powered by the Exa API