Beale v. Swasey

• Decision Date: 20 September 1909
• Parties: BEALE v. SWASEY.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

75 A. 134

106 Me. 35

BEALE

v. SWASEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Sept. 20, 1909.

Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Cumberland County.

Bill in equity by Harriet B. Beale, creditor, under the provisions of Rev. St. c. 89, § 21, against Evangeline P. Swasey, the executrix of the estate of Maria A. Bent, late of Portland, deceased, to recover judgment on a claim against the estate of said deceased, and which said claim had become barred by the special statute of limitations, to wit, section 14 of said chapter.

The defendant both demurred and answered. The justice of the first instance filed a pro forma decree dismissing the bill, and the plaintiff appealed. Dismissed.

Argued before WHITEHOUSE, SAVAGE, SPEAR, CORNISH, and KING, JJ.

Dennis A. Meaher, for appellant.

John Howard Hill, for appellee.

KING, J. This suit in equity is brought against the estate of Maria A. Bent under the provisions of Rev. St. c. 89, § 21, viz.:

"If the Supreme Judicial Court, upon a bill in equity filed by a creditor whose claim has not been prosecuted within the time limited by the preceding sections, is of the opinion that justice and equity require it, and that such creditor is not chargeable with culpable neglect in not prosecuting his claim within the time so limited, it may give him judgment for the amount of his claim against the estate of the deceased person; but such judgment shall not affect any payment or distribution made before the filing of such bill."

The defendant both demurred and answered the bill, and the case is before the law court on appeal from a pro forma decree sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill.

In support of the demurrer, it is contended, among other grounds, that the facts alleged in the bill show that the plaintiff is chargeable with culpable neglect in not bringing suit on her alleged claim within the time limited by statute.

The phrase "culpable neglect," as used in this statute, has been often judicially defined.

See Bennett v. Bennett, 93 Me. 241, 44 Atl. 894; Holway v. Ames, 100 Me. 208, 60 Atl. 897. It is "censurable," "blameworthy" neglect—"the neglect which exists when the loss can fairly be ascribed to his (plaintiff's) own carelessness, improvidence, or folly." Accordingly it has been held to be "culpable neglect" in the creditor of an estate to delay the enforcement of his claim, even at the special request of the estate, and relying upon the distinct promises and assurances of the administrator or executor that the claim should certainly be paid. See Waltham Bank v. Wright, 8 Allen (Mass.) 121; Jenney v. Wilcox, 9 Allen (Mass.) 245; Wells v. Child, 12 Allen (Mass.) 333.

The allegations of this bill respecting the delay to bring suit, considered in the most favorable light for the plaintiff, are, in substance, that she placed her claim with an attorney in good standing with express instructions to enforce it against the estate, that she was assured by him it was being properly attended to, and that she relied upon him and believed his assurances, and supposed her claim was in suit within the time limited, "but in some way to the plaintiff unknown, or by some oversight or inadvertence or negligence on the part of the attorney," no action on her claim was seasonably begun, although, as she afterward learned, the executrix had declined and...