Bullard v. Perry

• Decision Date: 16 July 1894
• Citation: 29 A. 787,66 Vt. 479
• Parties: WILLARD A. BULLARD, EXR. OF CAROLINE A. WOOD'S WILL v. BELLE C. PERRY
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

29 A. 787

66 Vt. 479

WILLARD A. BULLARD, EXR. OF CAROLINE A. WOOD'S WILL v. BELLE C. PERRY

Supreme Court of Vermont

July 16, 1894

MAY TERM, 1894

Bill in equity brought by the orator as executor of Caroline A Wood against the defendant as the heir-at-law of Lurena A Hudson, to compel the defendant to pay out of the property received by her from the estate of the said Lurena A. the amount of a claim in favor of Caroline A. Wood against the said Lurena A., as one of the heirs of Charles Wood.Heard upon demurrer to the bill at the March term, 1894, Rutland county.MUNSON, chancellor, dismissed the bill pro forma.The orator appeals.The questions decided fully appear in the opinion.

Decree affirmed and cause remanded.

J C. Baker and Coolidge & Coolidge for the orator.

Start J., being engaged in county court, did not sit.

OPINION

ROSS

The cause was heard on a general demurrer to the bill.For a proper consideration of the contentions made, it is not necessary to set forth fully the substance of the bill.The orator stands upon the rights of his testatrix Caroline A. Wood, who resided at her decease in Cambridge, Massachusetts.The defendant is heir-at-law of Lurena A. Hudson, who resided, at her decease, at Bethel, in this state, and who under the laws of Massachusetts had, as heir-at-law of Charles Wood, of Worcester, Massachusetts, received her proportionate share of his estate.No question is made but Caroline A. Wood's estate had a contingent claim against the estate of Charles Wood which did not become absolute until after Charles Wood's estate was lawfully distributed, and Lurena A. Hudson had received her share thereof.This claim did not become absolute until May 16, 1891.Wood v. Bullard,151 Mass. 324, which decision is set forth in the bill.In paragraphs eleven and fifteen, and in that portion of the bill which sets forth the decision in Bullard v. Moor,158 Mass. 418, a decision in which the orator procured the resident heirs of Charles Wood's estate to be charged with the payment of their proportionate shares of the claim, once contingent, but then become absolute, in favor of the estate represented by the orator, against the estate of Charles Wood, it is somewhat inartificially and argumentatively made to appear, that under the laws of Massachusetts, Lurena A. Hudson became liable to the orator to pay her proportionate share of this claim.Although made a party to the suit of Bullard v. Moor, supra, it is not claimed that that court ever had jurisdiction of Lurena A. Hudson or of her estate, nor that she or her estate ever became bound by that decision.In order to establish the liability of Lurena A. Hudson, and her estate, to pay the claim now sought to be enforced, in this suit, the orator will have to amend his bill in several particulars and set forth other facts, and the statute law of Massachusetts under which he claims that liability arises, that the court may see from the facts alleged that the liability exists.It is not enough to allege that it exists.But we have not given this much consideration, as the solicitor for the defendant made no point in regard to it.It is apparent from an examination of the laws of Massachusetts, Pub. St. c. 136, ss. 26-32, and from the decision in Bullard v. Moor, supra, that under them Lurena A. Hudson, by receiving as heir-at-law a share of the estate of Charles Wood, while the claim against it in favor of the estate represented by the orator was contingent, became liable for her proportionate share of that claim, to the extent of the amount she received from the estate of Charles Wood, as and for her own personal debt.It is contended for the defendant, that this being an indebtedness arising under the laws of Massachusetts can only be enforced in that state.But it being a debt, created by the laws of that state, by the receipt of money distributed to her under those laws, and not beyond the amount so received by her, it could be enforced under the laws of this state.This claim became absolute by a decree rendered May 16, 1891.June 17, 1891, Lurena A. Hudson died.Administration was taken on her estate in this state June 27, 1891, and closed by its distribution to the defendant, as sole heir thereto, June 10, 1892.It is apparent, from what has already been said, that the claim now made against the defendant became due absolutely to the orator, as the representative of

Caroline A. Wood's estate, when the claim in favor of her estate against Charles Wood's estate became absolute by the decree in Wood v. Bullardsupra,May 16, 1891, and upon the orator's payment of that decree May 20, 1891.Hence the orator could have presented this claim against the estate of Lurena A. Hudson.He cannot now pursue the defendant as heir-at-law of that...