Case Name: Phelps v. Jepson
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1769-03
Citations: 1 Root 48
Docket Number: 
Parties: Phelps v. Jepson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 48–49

Head Matter:
HARTFORD COUNTY,
MARCH TERM, A. D. 1769.
Phelps v. Jepson.
The doctrine of survivorship between joint tenants, exploded.
Action of ejectment for a lot of land in Hartford.
Plea — not guilty. Issue to the jury.
The jury find a special verdict — That Sarah and Hannah Burr were seized in fee of one-half of the demanded premises, by force of a deed from Isaac Burr to- them, dated the 18th of January A. D. 1126, and of the other half, by force of a deed from Timothy Phelps, dated, both of said deeds are recited in the special verdict,' and convey the estate to said Sarah and Hannah jointly — That they continued so seized until the death of said Sarah — That said Sarah before her death, made and published her last will and testament, which has since been proved and approved, and therein and thereby gave and devised to Isaac Burr, Jr. son of said Isaac, all lier riglit and tillo to one moiety of said lot; which will is dated tlie 26tli of September A. D. 1750 — That said Isaac, Jr. died intestate, and his personal estate insolvent — -That said land devised to him by said Sarah, was sold pursuant to an act of the general assembly, for the payment of his debts, to Dr. Sylvester Gardner, under whom, the defendant claims and holds — That said Hannah survived the said Sarah and by deed of bargain and sale, dated the 24th of August, A. D. 1758, sold and conveyed to the plaintiff all her right, title and interest to said lot of land, which deed is also recited.
And the question of law referred to the court upon the verdict is, whether the plaintiff upon the facts aforesaid is entitled to the whole or only one moiety of the demanded premises — Tf the former, then the jury find the defendant guilty ■— if the latter, then the jury find the defendant not guilty.

Opinion:
The judgment of the court upon the special verdict is, that the plaintiff is entitled to only one moiety of the demanded premises.
By this decision the doctrine of survivorship between joint tenants, was exploded, and determined not to be the law in this state, which settled, the law as to this point, and has never since, to my knowledge, been contradicted or shaken.