Smith v. Scofield
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. The plaintiff in this case, as the administrator of the estate of Mary Smith, late of New-Canaan, deceased, exhibited his administration account to the court of probate for the district of Norwalk, for settlement. The account was as follows: “ The estate of Mary Smith, in account with Sherman Smith, adminr.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. The plaintiff in this case, as the administrator of the estate of Mary Smith, late of New-Canaan, deceased, exhibited his administration account to the court of probate for the district of Norwalk, for settlement. The account was as follows: “ The estate of Mary Smith, in account with Sherman Smith, adminr. By amount of credit from Joseph Smith, as per files, $77.90 By bond of Joseph Smith, . . . 800.00 Amount of credits, $877.90 To amount of charges, . . , $270.49 “ credit of Joseph Smith, retained by him as set-off, 77.90 “ bond uncollectable, .... 800.00 “ counsel fees on trial…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
By a statute, which existed, for a long period of time, in this state, the law formerly was, that upon the reversal of a judgment of an inferior court, by the superior court, no costs could be taxed for either party. See Stat. 260. ed. 1808. While that law remained in force, it was decided, by the superior court, that upon the reversal of a decree of a court of probate, no costs could be taxed, upon the ground that an appeal, in such case, was in the nature of a writ of error; and it would be unreasonable that a party should pay costs, for the error of the judge. Mary Sloan’s case, 1 Root,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hardy v. CallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ramsdell v. Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Welles v. SchroederSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
- Hartford v. Public Utilities CommissionConnecticut Superior Court · 1973
- City of Hartford v. Public Utilities CommissionPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1973