English rule in Connecticut

1932We said in that case that “we have kept the remedies by mandamus and quo warranto distinct from each other, and confined the remedy of mandamus within its original and well established limits under the common law; Duane v. McDonald, 41 Conn. 517 ; and in that case we definitely adopted the English rule in preference to the Massachusetts rule which permits title to be tried by mandamus to restore one to an office.” We added: “Mandamus neither gives nor defines rights which one does not already have. ...

1932We said in that case that “we have kept the remedies by mandamus and quo warranto distinct from each other, and confined the remedy of mandamus within its original and well established limits under the common law; Duane v. McDonald, 41 Conn. 517 ; and in that case we definitely adopted the English rule in preference to the Massachusetts rule which permits title to be tried by mandamus to restore one to an office.” We added: “Mandamus neither gives nor defines rights which one does not already have. ...

1996This is known as the "English rule." Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 , 247 n. 18, 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975); Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17 , 21-22 (1987).

1996This is known as the "English rule." Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 , 247 n. 18, 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975); Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17 , 21-22 (1987).

1996This is known as the "English rule." Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 , 247 n. 18, 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975); Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17 , 21-22 (1987).

1992In 1930, however, the Court of appeals of New York repudiated the English rule in the seminal case of Pickle v. Page, 252 N.Y. 474 , 169 N.E. 650 (1930), and an irreversible American trend began.

1992In 1930, however, the Court of appeals of New York repudiated the English rule in the seminal case of Pickle v. Page, 252 N.Y. 474 , 169 N.E. 650 (1930), and an irreversible American trend began.

1985Co., 29 Conn. 548 (1861), adopted the English rule of law which then held that “an employee can not recover for an injury suffered in the course of his business from defective machinery, unless the employer knew or ought to have known the fact, and the employee did not know it or had not equal means of knowing it.” Id., 560 .

1985Co., 29 Conn. 548 (1861), adopted the English rule of law which then held that “an employee can not recover for an injury suffered in the course of his business from defective machinery, unless the employer knew or ought to have known the fact, and the employee did not know it or had not equal means of knowing it.” Id., 560 .

1962New Jersey followed the English rule in Hoyt v. Orcutt, 1 N.J. 454, 457 , 64 A.2d 212 , but, following the opinion of Chief Justice Vanderbilt in that case, a statute was enacted providing, in substance, that where a will or trust makes a gift to “issue” and contains no contrary expression, the issue will take per stirpes.

1962New Jersey followed the English rule in Hoyt v. Orcutt, 1 N.J. 454, 457 , 64 A.2d 212 , but, following the opinion of Chief Justice Vanderbilt in that case, a statute was enacted providing, in substance, that where a will or trust makes a gift to “issue” and contains no contrary expression, the issue will take per stirpes.

1962Wyeth v. Crane, 342 Ill. 545, 549 , 174 N.E. 871 ; Clarke v. Clarke, 222 Md. 153, 165 , 159 A.2d 362 ; In re Horrie Estate, 365 Mich. 448, 454 , 113 N.W.2d 793 ; In re Trust Estate of Thompson, 202 Minn. 648, 653, 279 N.W. 574 ; Mayhew’s Estate, supra. In New York, the English rule was followed until changed by statute.

1962Wyeth v. Crane, 342 Ill. 545, 549 , 174 N.E. 871 ; Clarke v. Clarke, 222 Md. 153, 165 , 159 A.2d 362 ; In re Horrie Estate, 365 Mich. 448, 454 , 113 N.W.2d 793 ; In re Trust Estate of Thompson, 202 Minn. 648, 653, 279 N.W. 574 ; Mayhew’s Estate, supra. In New York, the English rule was followed until changed by statute.

1962Wyeth v. Crane, 342 Ill. 545, 549 , 174 N.E. 871 ; Clarke v. Clarke, 222 Md. 153, 165 , 159 A.2d 362 ; In re Horrie Estate, 365 Mich. 448, 454 , 113 N.W.2d 793 ; In re Trust Estate of Thompson, 202 Minn. 648, 653, 279 N.W. 574 ; Mayhew’s Estate, supra. In New York, the English rule was followed until changed by statute.

1962Wyeth v. Crane, 342 Ill. 545, 549 , 174 N.E. 871 ; Clarke v. Clarke, 222 Md. 153, 165 , 159 A.2d 362 ; In re Horrie Estate, 365 Mich. 448, 454 , 113 N.W.2d 793 ; In re Trust Estate of Thompson, 202 Minn. 648, 653, 279 N.W. 574 ; Mayhew’s Estate, supra. In New York, the English rule was followed until changed by statute.

1962On this point the will contains no explicit direction, and in the absence of any direction to the contrary we have uniformly held in analogous cases that the per stirpes rule of distribution should be adopted.” In Dolbeare v. Dolbeare, 124 Conn. 286, 289 , 199 A. 555 , we pointed out the mounting criticism of the English rule in the United States. .

1962On this point the will contains no explicit direction, and in the absence of any direction to the contrary we have uniformly held in analogous cases that the per stirpes rule of distribution should be adopted.” In Dolbeare v. Dolbeare, 124 Conn. 286, 289 , 199 A. 555 , we pointed out the mounting criticism of the English rule in the United States. .

1962Wyeth v. Crane, 342 Ill. 545, 549 , 174 N.E. 871 ; Clarke v. Clarke, 222 Md. 153, 165 , 159 A.2d 362 ; In re Horrie Estate, 365 Mich. 448, 454 , 113 N.W.2d 793 ; In re Trust Estate of Thompson, 202 Minn. 648, 653, 279 N.W. 574 ; Mayhew’s Estate, supra. In New York, the English rule was followed until changed by statute.

1962Wyeth v. Crane, 342 Ill. 545, 549 , 174 N.E. 871 ; Clarke v. Clarke, 222 Md. 153, 165 , 159 A.2d 362 ; In re Horrie Estate, 365 Mich. 448, 454 , 113 N.W.2d 793 ; In re Trust Estate of Thompson, 202 Minn. 648, 653, 279 N.W. 574 ; Mayhew’s Estate, supra. In New York, the English rule was followed until changed by statute.

1945See, in support of the majority rule, De Brauwere v. De Brauwere, 203 N. Y. 460, 463 , 96 N. E. 722 ; Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Gray, 278 N. Y. 380, 387 , 16 N. E. (2d) 373; Cory v. Cook, 24 R.

1945Hunt v. *80 Hayes, 64 Vt. 89 , 23 Atl. 920 , is the only case found squarely supporting the defendant’s contention and is listed by Williston as one of the two American cases adhering to the early English doctrine.

1940But the decision in Roath v. Driscoll, supra, has not been overruled and stands as the law of this state.

1940But the decision in Roath v. Driscoll, supra, has not been overruled and stands as the law of this state.

1940In Swift & Co. v. Peoples Coal & Oil Co., 121 Conn. 579 , 186 Atl. 629 , where we held that an action would lie for pollution carried to the plaintiff’s premises by percolating water, we referred (p. 590) to the distinction drawn in Brown v. Illius, supra, in the dissenting opinion of Ellsworth, J., between pollution due to percolating water and an interference with the flow of such water; and we called attention to the fact that many well-considered American cases did not follow the English doctrine as to nonliability for interference with water percolating beneath the surface of the ground,

1940In Swift & Co. v. Peoples Coal & Oil Co., 121 Conn. 579 , 186 Atl. 629 , where we held that an action would lie for pollution carried to the plaintiff’s premises by percolating water, we referred (p. 590) to the distinction drawn in Brown v. Illius, supra, in the dissenting opinion of Ellsworth, J., between pollution due to percolating water and an interference with the flow of such water; and we called attention to the fact that many well-considered American cases did not follow the English doctrine as to nonliability for interference with water percolating beneath the surface of the ground,

1940In Swift & Co. v. Peoples Coal & Oil Co., 121 Conn. 579 , 186 Atl. 629 , where we held that an action would lie for pollution carried to the plaintiff’s premises by percolating water, we referred (p. 590) to the distinction drawn in Brown v. Illius, supra, in the dissenting opinion of Ellsworth, J., between pollution due to percolating water and an interference with the flow of such water; and we called attention to the fact that many well-considered American cases did not follow the English doctrine as to nonliability for interference with water percolating beneath the surface of the ground,

1940In Swift & Co. v. Peoples Coal & Oil Co., 121 Conn. 579 , 186 Atl. 629 , where we held that an action would lie for pollution carried to the plaintiff’s premises by percolating water, we referred (p. 590) to the distinction drawn in Brown v. Illius, supra, in the dissenting opinion of Ellsworth, J., between pollution due to percolating water and an interference with the flow of such water; and we called attention to the fact that many well-considered American cases did not follow the English doctrine as to nonliability for interference with water percolating beneath the surface of the ground,

1935In Swasey v. Jaques, 144 Mass. 135, 138 , 14 N. E. 758 , it is held that primarily and in the absence of anything which modifies the meaning it indicates “the nearest degree of consanguinity.” In Schouler on Wills, Yol. 2, § 880, it is stated that in case of doubt a construction which conforms most nearly to the general statutes of descent and distribution should prevail; citing Pendleton v. Larrabee, 62 Conn. 393 , 26 Atl. 482 .

1935In Swasey v. Jaques, 144 Mass. 135, 138 , 14 N. E. 758 , it is held that primarily and in the absence of anything which modifies the meaning it indicates “the nearest degree of consanguinity.” In Schouler on Wills, Yol. 2, § 880, it is stated that in case of doubt a construction which conforms most nearly to the general statutes of descent and distribution should prevail; citing Pendleton v. Larrabee, 62 Conn. 393 , 26 Atl. 482 .

1935In Swasey v. Jaques, 144 Mass. 135, 138 , 14 N. E. 758 , it is held that primarily and in the absence of anything which modifies the meaning it indicates “the nearest degree of consanguinity.” In Schouler on Wills, Yol. 2, § 880, it is stated that in case of doubt a construction which conforms most nearly to the general statutes of descent and distribution should prevail; citing Pendleton v. Larrabee, 62 Conn. 393 , 26 Atl. 482 .

1935In Swasey v. Jaques, 144 Mass. 135, 138 , 14 N. E. 758 , it is held that primarily and in the absence of anything which modifies the meaning it indicates “the nearest degree of consanguinity.” In Schouler on Wills, Yol. 2, § 880, it is stated that in case of doubt a construction which conforms most nearly to the general statutes of descent and distribution should prevail; citing Pendleton v. Larrabee, 62 Conn. 393 , 26 Atl. 482 .

1935In Swasey v. Jaques, 144 Mass. 135, 138 , 14 N. E. 758 , it is held that primarily and in the absence of anything which modifies the meaning it indicates “the nearest degree of consanguinity.” In Schouler on Wills, Yol. 2, § 880, it is stated that in case of doubt a construction which conforms most nearly to the general statutes of descent and distribution should prevail; citing Pendleton v. Larrabee, 62 Conn. 393 , 26 Atl. 482 .

1935In Swasey v. Jaques, 144 Mass. 135, 138 , 14 N. E. 758 , it is held that primarily and in the absence of anything which modifies the meaning it indicates “the nearest degree of consanguinity.” In Schouler on Wills, Yol. 2, § 880, it is stated that in case of doubt a construction which conforms most nearly to the general statutes of descent and distribution should prevail; citing Pendleton v. Larrabee, 62 Conn. 393 , 26 Atl. 482 .

1925Many cases go to the full extent of the English doctrine holding deeds from child to parent as prima facie void and casting the burden of proof of good faith on the grantee, and there appear few cases, if any, which do not sustain the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Towson v. Moore, 173 U. S. 17, 20 , 19 Sup. Ct. 332, where it is held that, although such deeds are not presumptively void, yet “it is undoubtedly the duty of courts carefully to watch and examine the circumstances attending transactions of this kind, when brought under review before them, to discover if any undue

1925Many cases go to the full extent of the English doctrine holding deeds from child to parent as prima facie void and casting the burden of proof of good faith on the grantee, and there appear few cases, if any, which do not sustain the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Towson v. Moore, 173 U. S. 17, 20 , 19 Sup. Ct. 332, where it is held that, although such deeds are not presumptively void, yet “it is undoubtedly the duty of courts carefully to watch and examine the circumstances attending transactions of this kind, when brought under review before them, to discover if any undue

1920In Larkin v. Avery, 23 Conn. 304, 317 , this court said: “It is said, that if we adopt that part of the English rule, making estates at will, estates from year to year, we must adopt the whole rule, and hold that six months’ notice is necessary, but this is not so; our statute gives the landlord,, in every case of holding over, a right, and *464 the remedy, to regain possession in thirty days.

1920In Larkin v. Avery, 23 Conn. 304, 317 , this court said: “It is said, that if we adopt that part of the English rule, making estates at will, estates from year to year, we must adopt the whole rule, and hold that six months’ notice is necessary, but this is not so; our statute gives the landlord,, in every case of holding over, a right, and *464 the remedy, to regain possession in thirty days.

1915Bartlett v. Sears, 81 Conn. 34, 39 , 70 Atl. 33 ; Perry v. Bulkley, 82 Conn. 158, 164 , 72 Atl. 1014 ; Davenport v. Hanbury, 3 Ves.

1915Bartlett v. Sears, 81 Conn. 34, 39 , 70 Atl. 33 ; Perry v. Bulkley, 82 Conn. 158, 164 , 72 Atl. 1014 ; Davenport v. Hanbury, 3 Ves.

1915Bartlett v. Sears, 81 Conn. 34, 39 , 70 Atl. 33 ; Perry v. Bulkley, 82 Conn. 158, 164 , 72 Atl. 1014 ; Davenport v. Hanbury, 3 Ves.

1915Bartlett v. Sears, 81 Conn. 34, 39 , 70 Atl. 33 ; Perry v. Bulkley, 82 Conn. 158, 164 , 72 Atl. 1014 ; Davenport v. Hanbury, 3 Ves.

1913Northern Bank v. Keizer, 63 Ky. (2 Duv.) 169, 171 ; Johnson v. Gordon, 102 Ga. 350, 359 , 30 S. E. 507 .

1913Northern Bank v. Keizer, 63 Ky. (2 Duv.) 169, 171 ; Johnson v. Gordon, 102 Ga. 350, 359 , 30 S. E. 507 .

1913Northern Bank v. Keizer, 63 Ky. (2 Duv.) 169, 171 ; Johnson v. Gordon, 102 Ga. 350, 359 , 30 S. E. 507 .

1913Northern Bank v. Keizer, 63 Ky. (2 Duv.) 169, 171 ; Johnson v. Gordon, 102 Ga. 350, 359 , 30 S. E. 507 .

1910L. 332, 334, 19 Atl. 780 . *559 We have kept the remedies by mandamus and quo warranto distinct from each other, and confined the remedy of mandamus within its original and well-established limits under the common law; Duane v. McDonald, 41 Conn. 517 ; and in that case we definitely adopted the English rule in preference to the Massachusetts rule which permits title to be tried by mandamus to restore one to an office.

1910L. 332, 334, 19 Atl. 780 . *559 We have kept the remedies by mandamus and quo warranto distinct from each other, and confined the remedy of mandamus within its original and well-established limits under the common law; Duane v. McDonald, 41 Conn. 517 ; and in that case we definitely adopted the English rule in preference to the Massachusetts rule which permits title to be tried by mandamus to restore one to an office.

1907In Newton v. Seaman's Friend Society, 130 Mass. 91 , an extreme statement of the doctrine is sanctioned, largely jupón the authority of Allen v. Maddock.

1907In Newton v. Seaman's Friend Society, 130 Mass. 91 , an extreme statement of the doctrine is sanctioned, largely jupón the authority of Allen v. Maddock.