Case Name: Daniel Moss and Wife's Appeal from Probate
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1869-09
Citations: 36 Conn. 212
Docket Number: 
Parties: Daniel Moss and Wife’s Appeal from Probate.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 212–212

Head Matter:
Daniel Moss and Wife’s Appeal from Probate.
The action of commissioners on an insolvent estate, in allowing or rejecting claims prosenfed against the estate; can not be reviewed upon an appeal from ih decree of the probate court accepting the commissioners’ report, but only-on an appeal taken directly from the doings of the commissioners.
Appeal from a decree of a probate court accepting the report of commissioners on the insolvent estate of Lydia Riggs, taken to the Superior Court in New Haven county. The court (Sanford, J.,~) dismissed the appeal, and the appellants brought the record before this court by a motion in error. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
H. B. Munson, for the plaintiffs in error.
C. R. Ingersoll, for the defendants in error.

Opinion:
Hinman, C. J.
We think the Superior Court committed no error in dismissing this appeal on the facts appearing on the record. The appeal is taken from the decree of the probate court approving and accepting the report of commissioners on the estate of Lydia Riggs, deceased, and the only reasons of appeal that are assigned .are, first, that the commissioners rejected a portion of the claim of Mrs. Moss, one of the appellants, presented against the estate, and, second, that they allowed certain other claims which should have been rejected. The case is therefore precisely like that of Bennett's Appeal from Probate, 33 Conn., 214, in which we held that an appeal in such a case should be taken directly from the doings of the commissioners and not from the decree accepting their report. See also remarks of Church, J., in Peck v. Sturges, 11 Conn., 424.
There is no error in the judgment.
In this opinion the. other judges concurred.