44 Conn. 327 | Conn. | 1877
The respondents bring this case before us on a motion in error, and the only question arising on the record is, whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction of the matters alleged in the bill.
The respondents claim that the courts of probate have sole jurisdiction of all matters pertaining to the settlement of estates, and that courts of equity will not take cognizance of matters connected with such settlements, unless in cases where the difficulties before the probate courts are insurmountable ; and that the matters here in controversy come properly under the cognizance of the probate court, and that it has power to give redress to this petitioner if he has reason for it.
That the petitioner has a right to redress is not denied, and could not be under the facts in this case, for a more palpable wrong is rarely done than the one these respondents attempted to perpetrate, and so far as they were able did perpetrate, upon the petitioner. They endeavored to divest him of his legal rights in the estate of his uncle, and so far succeeded by taking advantage of his weakness of intellect, and by keeping him in ignorance of his rights, and by abusing his confidence in them as his near relatives, as to procure his signature to an agreement, by which he, in effect, relinquished to the respondents his share as heir-at-law, worth about two thousand dollars, for the sum of sixty dollars a year during his life.
Nothing could be more grossly inequitable, and a court of equity, unless restrained by the most rigid rule of law, ought to take jurisdiction, and lay its hand on such a transaction.
There is no question but that, in all ordinary matters relating to the settlement of estates, courts of probate have sole
There is no error in the judgment complained of.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.