Legal Opinion

Sweeney v. Sweeney

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 6, 1940PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.

Maurice Sweeney, plaintiff’s intestate, hereinafter called Maurice, deeded his farm to his brother John M. Sweeney, hereinafter called John, and the deed was recorded. John deeded the property back to Maurice. This deed is unrecorded and was accidentally burned. The question to be decided is whether the second deed was delivered and if so, whether or not a condition claimed to be attached to the delivery is operative. This must be determined on the finding. The following statement includes such changes therein as are required by the evidence:

The plaintiff is the widow and administratrix of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Hotaling v. HotalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Stewart v. SilvaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Fisk's Appeal From Doings of CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
  4. McDermott v. McDermottSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
  5. Porter v. WoodhouseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1890

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bell v. BloomSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
  2. Costello v. CostelloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
  3. Foster v. CumbieCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1958
  4. Lomartira v. LomartiraSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
  5. Parrillo v. SiravoSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1967

2 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