Bennett v. Woodman
| Decision Date | 09 January 1875 |
| Citation | 116 Mass. 518 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Edmund H. Bennett, Judge of Probate, v. Alice S. Woodman & another |
Argued October 27, 1874
Bristol. Contract, on the probate bond of the administratrix of Brownell W. Woodman. The breach alleged was failure to account. The answer admitted the execution of the bond and denied any breach, and set up that the action was begun and instituted at the suggestion and for the benefit of Cornelia M. Remington, an adopted daughter of the intestate and the first named defendant; that after the taking out of administration upon the estate of Brownell W. Woodman by Alice S. Woodman, and the execution and approval of the bond declared on, the said Alice discovered a will of said Brownell W. Woodman, which will was afterwards duly proved approved and allowed by the Probate Court for the county of Bristol; that by the terms of said will all the personal estate of Brownell W. Woodman was given to the said Alice S and that Brownell W. Woodman, at the time of his decease left no real estate; that Cornelia M. Remington was adopted by Brownell W. and Alice S. Woodman after the execution of said will by Brownell W. Woodman; that Brownell W. died in 1859, not intending to make any provision in his will for Cornelia M. Remington; and that Cornelia M. has no such interest in and to the estate of Brownell W. Woodman as to entitle her to cause said bond to be put in suit, or to maintain an action thereon.
At the trial in this court, before Devens, J., the defendants admitted that no account had been rendered, and offered evidence in support of the allegations in their answer. The judge ruled that the evidence was inadmissible; a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff; and the case was reported for the consideration of the full court.
Judgment on the verdict.
J. M. Morton, Jr., for the defendants.
E. Williams & T. M. Stetson, for the plaintiff.
The administratrix has no such interest in the matter of granting leave to bring an action upon her bond, as to give her a right to resist the application therefor, or to be heard upon it. Fay v. Rogers, 2 Gray 175. Richardson v. Oakman, 15 Gray 57. We think it must follow from the same considerations, that, when a suit has been brought upon the bond, the administratrix and her sureties are not entitled to contest the validity of the order of the Probate Court authorizing it. When the suit is brought for the especial use and benefit of any one, the interest or right of that person must be established in order to maintain the action, because it is necessarily involved in the breach assigned. But in an action for the general benefit of the estate, as for not accounting, the obligees in the bond ought not to defeat all recovery upon it by showing merely that the person upon whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCoole v. Mackintosh
...action was to obtain a judgment to secure the rights and protect the interests of all those affected by the breach alleged. Bennett v. Woodman, 116 Mass. 518, 520. The present claimant has the benefit of the existing situation. The statute of limitations now operative is G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c.......
-
Metropolitan Finance Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co.
...Oakman, 15 Gray, 57. Bennett v. Woodman, 116 Mass. 518 . Choate v. Jacobs, 136 Mass. 297 , 298. Putney v. Fletcher, 140 Mass. 596 . In the Bennett case it was said at page 519: administratrix has no such interest in the matter of granting leave to bring an action upon her bond, as to give h......
-
Miles, v. Coombs
...any one, the interest of that person must be established to maintain the action, because it is involved in the breach assigned. Bennett v. Woodman, 116 Mass. 518. An interest on the part of this executor plaintiff is not shown. The trust, an enforcement of which is sought, attached when the......
-
Pinner v. Temple
... ... assets. Circuity of action is not worth avoiding at the price ... of such confusion as might result. Bennett v ... Woodman, 116 Mass. 518; Seaver v. Weston, 163 ... Mass. 202, 39 N.E. 1013; Clabburn v. Phillips, 245 ... Mass. 47, 139 N.E. 498; Slocum v ... ...