Hardy v. Scott
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Paulson v. Blake, No. Cv001 038 49 58 (Jan. 10, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
- Cadle Company v. Cooper, No. Cv 98 054 63 15 (Feb. 26, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
- National Mortgage Co. v. Tempkin, No. Cv 94 0065542 (May 24, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
- Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Terribile, No. Cv 92-0451158s (Dec. 10, 1992) (Connecticut Superior Court 1992)
- Claydon v. Finizie (Conn. App. Ct. 1986)
- Brill v. Ulrey (Conn. 1970)
- Wachtel v. Rosol (Conn. 1970)
- Joseph Rugo, Inc. v. Henson (Conn. 1961)
- McNish v. American Brass Co. (Conn. 1952)
- Parlato v. McCarthy (Conn. 1949)
- Vogel v. Bacus (Conn. 1946)
- Tremp v. Board of Public Safety (Connecticut Superior Court 1944)
- Caswell Cove Condo. v. Milford Partners, No. Cv 960053458s (Jul. 10, 1996) (Connecticut Superior Court 1996)
- Swartz v. Commissioner of Transportation, No. 31 92 99 (Jul. 21, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
- Beacon Hill Condo. v. Beacon Falls, No. Cv92 03 97 25s (Dec. 21, 1992) (Connecticut Superior Court 1992)
- Arrow Lakes Dairy, Inc. v. Gill (Connecticut Superior Court 1962)
- Gorke v. Le Clerc (Connecticut Superior Court 1962)
- Brecker v. Nielsen (Connecticut Superior Court 1958)
- Hopkins v. McClure (Connecticut Superior Court 1950)
- Bell v. Bell (Connecticut Superior Court 1948)
- Bell v. Bell (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas 1948)
- Blanchard v. Voghel (Connecticut Superior Court 1943)
- Blanchard v. Voghel (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas 1943)
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
According to the complaint, the plaintiff deeded the property in question to the defendant and the latter’s wife, Francener Scott, reserving a life use and on condition that the Scotts support him during his life, with reversion to the grantor on breach of the condition; Francener Scott died intestate about two years before the bringing of the action leaving the defendant as her sole heir-at-law and successor in title; the condition of the deed was broken by the defendant and the plaintiff was entitled to possession and title to the premises. The defendant demurred because neither the administrator, heirs or personal representatives of Francener were made parties. The demurrer was overruled and this action was assigned as error. Errors in the charge were also assigned but these are not before us since there is no finding in the record.
The demurrer admitted facts well pleaded. State’s Attorney v. Selectmen of Branford, 59 Conn. 402, 411, 22 Atl. 336. It therefore admitted the allegation that the defendant was Francener’s sole heir-at-law. This might have been so. General Statutes, § 5156. Title to intestate lands vests at once in the heirs “subject only to such rights as might arise out of the need to come upon them to satisfy debts and expenses of administration, and distribution was not necessary to confer title.” Perkins v. August, 109 Conn. 452, 456, 146 Atl. 831; Bowen v. Morgillo, 127 Conn. 161, 168, 14 Atl. (2d) 724. Extraneous facts may exist which would disclose a deficiency of necessary parties but these could not be taken advantage of by demurrer.
There is no error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.