Legal Opinion

Russell v. Russell

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided April 17, 1929PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, J.

The first question we propose to consider concerns the authority of the trustees to cause extensive and permanent improvements upon the premises in their charge. The plaintiffs in their brief quote from the note to 2 Perry on Trusts & Trustees (6th Ed.) § 477, a statement to the effect that American decisions show a strong tendency to modify the rule which forbids permanent and extensive improvements unless clearly authorized in the will or unless the expenditures are necessary to save the trust property from destruction or irreparable loss. This statement hardly seems borne out by the…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Curtiss v. BrownIllinois Supreme Court · 1862
  2. Stevens v. . MelcherNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  3. Warren v. PazoltMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  4. Colonial Trust Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  5. Upham v. PlankintonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Shannon v. EnoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
  2. Taft Realty Corp. v. Yorkhaven Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
  3. Rogers v. EnglishSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
  4. McCarthy v. TierneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  5. Second Ecclesiastical Society of Hartford v. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946

16 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