Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Catanzaro v. Catanzaro

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided February 7, 1941Published

1ConcurrenceMaltbie, C. J.

I am willing to concur in the somewhat technical grounds upon which the opinion disposes of this case. In my judgment, however, the result would be the same if the appeal were regarded as presenting all the claims the plaintiff has made before us. It is my understanding of our law; that a conveyance of property by a fiduciary from which he derives a personal profit is not void, but if it is attacked the burden is upon him to establish that the transaction was in all respects fair and equitable. State v. Culhane, 78 Conn. 622, 628, 63 Atl. 636; Sisk v. Jordan Co., 94 Conn. 384, 390, 109 Atl.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. CulhaneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
  2. Sisk v. Jordan Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
  3. Marks Appeal From ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
  4. Sachs v. FeinnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
  5. Delaney v. KennaughSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API