Brush v. Button
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- First National Bank & Trust Co. v. McCoy (Conn. 1938)
- Jackson v. Johnson, No. Cv93 0704124 (May 24, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)
- Hall v. Dichello Distributors, Inc. (Conn. App. Ct. 1986)
- Insurance Co. of North America v. Dragat (Conn. 1973)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
For some unaccountable reason the defendants have neglected to settle their executors’ account with the court of probate, which they could have done at any time before judgment was rendered in the present case, and that court would undoubtedly have made such deductions from the inventory as justice and right required. That was the proper place to settle their account, and by our law is the only place where it can he done, as will appear by an examination of the statute, and the repeated decisions of this court on the subject. General Statutes, 229, 409, 412; Bacon v. Fairman, 6 Conn., 121; Pitkin v. Pitkin, 7 id., 315 ; Bailey v. Strong, 8 id., 278; Wattles v. Hyde, 9 id., 10; Beach v. Norton, id., 182 ; Cowles v. Whitman, 10 id., 121. In the case of
The defence made in this case is an effort on the part of the defendants to settle their executors’ account in the Superior Court; which could not have been done even if the case had been brought to that court on 'appeal from the decision of the court of probate in settling the account. All the Superior Court could do in such a case would be to reverse the decision of the court of probate, and send the case back to that court to be settled again. Fairman’s Appeal from Probate, 30 Conn., 205.
A new trial is not advised.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.