Legal Opinion

Seidel v. Seidel

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 5, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

The plaintiff brings this so-called action for contribution to recover from defendant his eotenant one half of the moneys expended by him for taxes, interest and improvements upon the farm which the parties admittedly own as tenants in common. The essential facts as found by the court are: the plaintiff and defendant, who are husband and wife, purchased this farm in 1915; they separted in 1919, the defendant wife going to New York. The plaintiff either knew or could have ascertained where the defendant was living in New York after their separation but he never communicated with her. He has…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bennett v. United Lumber & Supply Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  2. Brady v. BradySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
  3. Fowler v. FowlerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1882
  4. Brady v. BradySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Vesce v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  2. Neumann v. NeumannSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
  3. Crowell v. DanforthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  4. Lerman v. LevineConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
  5. Vesce v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API