Barnum v. Boughton
| Citation | 10 A. 514,55 Conn. 117 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1887 |
| Parties | BARNUM v. BOUGHTON, Adm'r. |
Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county; Stoddard, Justice.
On demurrer to a plea to scire facias upon a process of foreign attachment.
H. W. Taylor, for Barnum, appellant. S. D. Brewster and H. B. Scott, for Boughton, Adm'r, appellee.
The statute provides that the court of probate may allow out of the estate of a deceased person such amounts as it may judge proper for the support of the widow or family of the deceased during the settlement of the estate. Another statute provides that, when any debt, legacy, or distributive share is or may become due to any one from the estate of a deceased person, his creditor may attach it in the hands of the executor or administrator. William A. Daniels died, leaving a widow. The probate court made an allowance of $200 for her support during the settlement of the estate. The plaintiff, a creditor of the widow, attached it in the hands of the administrator. Upon demurrer, the superior court determined that it could not be made the subject of attachment. The plaintiff appealed.
Upon the death of a man the law takes instant possession of his entire estate in the interest of an orderly appropriation thereof—First, to the payment of certain preferred debts; secondly, of the remaining debts in equal proportions; thirdly, for the payment of specific legacies, the remainder to be divided among the heirs. If there are wife and children surviving, presumably they are without means for providing themselves with instant food and fuel, except as they may claim these necessaries from the hand of public charity; and must so continue until the law has completed the work of division,—a work of statutory necessity, speading over a considerable space of time. In the interest of humanity, and for the prevention of what in almost every case would be an unseemly and unnecessary demand upon public charity, the law provides that the probate court may make such temporary allowance to the widow or children as shall supply their daily recurring needs. Of course, if it shall finally result that the estate is not equal to the debts, these last are to bear the burden of the temporary necessities of the family. This is no hardship, because every man knows when he gives credit to another that death may overtake the debtor when he is unable to pay, and that a portion of such assets as he may have will be expended for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bourget v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 380
...to his widow, Patricia Thompson, for her support as a widow's allowance, which was also entitled to priority. See Barnum v. Boughton, 55 Conn. 117, 10 A. 514 (1887); Conn.Gen.Stat. § 45-250. The account stated there was no property available for distribution. Although there is no specific i......
-
Rubinow v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Rubinow)
...depends on a showing that an allowance is necessary for the widow's support during the settlement of the estate. Barnum v. Boughton, 55 Conn. 117, 10 A. 514 (1887); Appeal of Havens, 69 Conn. 684, 38 A. 795 (1897). This discretion in the Probate Court has recently been reconfirmed in Sklar ......
-
Sklar v. Sklar's Estate
...estate was not subject to attachment by her creditors, this court, speaking by Pardee, J., had this to say in Barnum v. Boughton, 55 Conn. 117, 118-19, 10 A. 514, about such allowance: 'Upon the death of a man the law takes instant possession of his entire estate in the interest of an order......
-
Baldwin v. Tradesmens Nat. Bank
...itself, a ground for denying an allowance if one is found to be necessary. Leavenworth v. Marshall, 19 Conn. 408, 418; Barnum v. Boughton, 55 Conn. 117, 118, 10 A. 514. Here, Mrs. Baldwin had practically no funds, and her income consisted only of $77 a week received from the state. The ques......