Ginzberg v. Wyman
| Citation | 272 Mass. 499,172 N.E. 614 |
| Parties | GINZBERG v. WYMAN. |
| Decision Date | 16 September 1930 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Probate Court, Suffolk County; Wm. M. Prest, Judge.
Petition by Albert A. Ginzberg, opposed by Henry A. Wyman, administrator, for compensation for services as attorney for the estate of William Bernstein. From an order granting a motion to dismiss the petition, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Albert A. Ginzberg, of Boston, for appellant.
Henry A. Wyman and Guy L. Vaughan, both of Boston, for respondent.
This is a petition filed in a probate court. Its allegations in substance are that the petitioner acted as attorney at law for the estate of William Bernstein from April 16, 1923 to October 10, 1923, and that a statement of the services and of certain small disbursements is annexed. The prayer is that the amount thereof be ordered paid to the petitioner out of the estate. The statement of account annexed contains charges both before and after the dates specified in the petition, the last one being on April 14, 1926. No payments are credited on the account. This petition was filed on January 20, 1930, being three years and slightly more than nine months subsequent to the date of the last charge. The petition is brought under G. L. c. 215, § 39. Its pertinent provisions are these: ‘Probate courts may ascertain and determine the amount due any person * * * for services rendered by any person in connection with the administration of the estate of a deceased person * * * and payment of said amount when ascertained and determined to be due may be enforced summarily by said court * * * in the same manner as a like payment under a decree in equity * * * and execution may also be issued * * * as upon a judgment at law.’ The administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of said estate moved that the petition be dismissed for the reason that on its face it was barred by the special statute of limitations in G. L. c. 260, § 11. That section, so far as here material, is in these words: ‘An action founded on any contract made or act done, if made or done by any person acting as the executor, administrator or other legal representative of the estate of a deceased person, shall be brought within one year * * * after the right of action accrues. * * *’ This motion was granted. The petitioner appealed.
The petitioner rightly concedes that resort by him to an action at law or suit in equity against the executors or administrators of the estate of the decedent would be barred. He contends that under said section 39 already quoted the probate court has jurisdiction to order payment of his charges. That contention cannot be supported. The design of that section is to confer upon the probate courts jurisdiction to deal, in connection with their distinctly probate jurisdiction, with subjects in the nature of claims which before its enactment could be litigated as to primary liability only in courts of law or equity. It does not affect in any respect the statutes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Keenan
...a court of justice without regard to the form of legal proceedings. Boston v. Turner, 201 Mass. 190, 196, 87 N. E. 634;Ginzberg v. Wyman, 272 Mass. 499, 501, 172 N. E. 614. It is manifest that the word ‘action’ is not used in any narrow sense. As originally enacted in St. 1898, c. 535, the ......
-
King v. Grace
...with the administrationof the estate of a deceased person. Although that statute is not to be broadly extended, Ginzberg v. Wyman, 272 Mass. 499, 501, 172 N.E. 614;Conley v. Fenelon, 266 Mass. 340, 345, 165 N.E. 382, it supports the conclusion that in the peculiar conditions of the case at ......
-
Blockel v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 02-1927.
...v. John, 259 F. 549, 551 (3d Cir.1919); "the pursuit of a right in court, without regard to the form of procedure," Ginzberg v. Wyman, 272 Mass. 499, 172 N.E. 614, 615 (1930); and "[j]udicial remedy for the enforcement or protection of a right," White v. White, 98 Ind.App. 587, 186 N.E. 349......
-
Union Mkt. Nat. Bank of Watertown v. Gardiner (In re Whitney's Estate)
...Boston v. Turner, 201 Mass. 190, 196, 87 N. E. 634; Pigeon's Case, 216 Mass. 51, 56, 102 N. E. 932, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 737;Ginzberg v. Wyman, 272 Mass. 499, 172 N. E. 614. The terms of said section 1 are not restricted to the actions which survive under G. L. c. 228. The bank is a ‘creditor’ ......