Sec. 45a-24. (Formerly Sec. 45-9). Validity of orders, judgments and decrees.

Annotations to former section 45-9:

Generally as to collateral attack. 2 C. 388; 26 C. 273; 39 C. 523; 45 C. 196; 48 C. 165; 50 C. 330; 59 C. 361; 62 C. 221; 63 C. 338; 66 C. 140; 67 C. 7; Id., 184; 69 C. 78; 70 C. 378; 75 C. 308; 86 C 470. Order by disqualified judge unappealed from held valid. 39 C. 257. Effect of fraud on provision. 66 C. 140; 91 C. 521. Court cannot ordinarily revoke its own decrees. 76 C. 420; 81 C. 688. Failure to conform to law in preliminary matter may not be ground to set aside decree. Id., 681; 86 C. 281. Foreign judgment of Probate Court entitled to full credit. 81 C. 686. Where an estate is administered as intestate because of mistaken belief that there was no will, equity can enjoin any use of probate decrees to hamper or defeat proceedings to secure probate of will later discovered. 135 C. 489. Action in equity to set aside a decree admitting a will to probate held a direct attack and not within prohibition of section. 146 C. 188. Cited. 152 C. 530, 532; 153 C. 545; Id., 603; 165 C. 478, 487. Fraudulent assertion of death concerned jurisdictional fact, and decree was subject to collateral attack and to being declared null and void, but a void decree may form basis for adverse possession. 171 C. 149.

Cited. 22 CA 490; 23 CA 174.

Where estate was administered and distributed as intestate and will was discovered 4 years later, court permitted proceedings in probate though there was no fraud. 15 CS 316. Where tax commissioner appealed Probate Court decree holding 2 of 3 antemortem transfers by decedent nontaxable, executor who had failed to appeal finding of third transfer as taxable could not raise the issue by affirmative claim in his answer and plea in abatement was granted on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. 28 CS 210.

Annotations to present section:

Counterclaim was essentially an appeal from Probate Court decree and coexecutor's separate application for authorization to sell real property was a pleading filed in furtherance of their claim on appeal; Superior Court was sitting as a Probate Court in a probate appeal; Superior Court's adjudication of application did not violate section. 152 CA 282; judgment reversed in part, see 320 C. 103. Section provides only for collateral attacks and has no provision permitting direct attacks on probate decrees, therefore, in order for Superior Court to possess jurisdiction, a plaintiff would need to institute a separate action collaterally attacking the probate decree admitting the will and invoke the court's equitable jurisdiction by alleging fraud or other equitable grounds. 197 CA 373.