McFeely v. Scott
| Decision Date | 26 July 1879 |
| Citation | 128 Mass. 16 |
| Parties | Michael McFeely, administrator, v. Peter B. Scott |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. The first case was an action of contract for money had and received. The declaration alleged that Bernard McFeely in his lifetime entrusted certain funds to the keeping of the defendant; that Bernard subsequently died, and the plaintiff was on October 24, 1876, duly appointed his administrator by the Probate Court for the county of Middlesex; and a demand upon the defendant, and his refusal to pay. The defendant filed an answer in abatement, denying the jurisdiction of the Probate Court to grant letters of administration to the plaintiff, alleging that the intestate never was an inhabitant of, or a resident in, the county of Middlesex, and left no estate to be administered therein; and that administration was fraudulently obtained by the false representations of the plaintiff.
At the trial in this court, without a jury, Lord, J., found the allegations of the answer in abatement to be true, and reserved for the determination of the full court the question whether judgment should be entered for the defendant.
Answer in abatement adjudged bad.
H Stevens, for the plaintiff.
A. A Ranney, for the defendant.
OPINION
It is provided by statute, that the jurisdiction assumed in any case by the Probate Court, "so far as it depends on the place of residence of a person, shall not be contested in any suit or proceeding, except in an appeal in the original case or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the same record." Gen. Sts. c. 117, § 4. Rev. Sts. c. 83, § 12.
It appears from the records of the Probate Court in this case, that the only ground alleged in the plaintiff's petition for the grant of administration in Middlesex is that the intestate last dwelt in Cambridge in that county. The appointment of the plaintiff upon this petition implies that the court passed upon the question of residence, and assumed jurisdiction because of the intestate's residence in that county. There is nothing, therefore, in the record which shows want of jurisdiction, and the case is brought clearly within the provisions of the statute.
Before this statute was enacted, it had been often decided, that where jurisdiction was assumed in the wrong county, all proceedings under the grant of administration were absolutely void; and that the fact that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Porter
...of which the former statute was omitted from the Revised Laws of 1902. See Jochumsen v. Suffolk Savings Bank, 3 Allen 87, 89-92;McFeely v. Scott, 128 Mass. 16;Dallinger v. Richardson, 176 Mass. 77, 57 N.E. 224;Connors v. Cunard Steamship Co. Ltd., 204 Mass. 310, 321, 323, 90 N.E. 601, 26 L.......
-
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Porter
... ... omitted from the Revised Laws of 1902. See Jochumsen v ... Suffolk Savings Bank, 3 Allen, 87, 89-92; McFeely v ... Scott, 128 Mass. 16; Dallinger v. Richardson, ... 176 Mass. 77; Connors v. Cunard Steamship Co. Ltd ... 204 Mass. 310 , 321-323. In ... ...
-
Knight v. Rollings
...v. Rye, 35 N. H. 386; Ela's Appeal, 68 N. H. 35, 38 Atl. 501; Wilson v. Otis, 71 N. H. 483, 53 Atl. 439, 93 Am. St Rep. 564; McFeely v. Scott, 128 Mass. 16, 17; Stanley v. Safe Deposit Co., 87 Md. 450, 40 Atl. 53; Corrigan v. Jones, 14 Colo. 311, 23 Pac. 913; Vanfleet Col. At, § 60 et seq.,......
-
Brown v. Robinson
...finding of the trial judge that the plaintiff was within the protection of said chapter 187 cannot be pronounced erroneous. See McFeely v. Scott, 128 Mass. 16, 19. Order dismissing report ...