Shurtleff v. Ferry
| Decision Date | 09 January 1885 |
| Citation | 138 Mass. 259 |
| Parties | William S. Shurtleff, Judge of Probate, v. Lewis M. Ferry, administrator |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued September 23, 1884.
No execution to issue.
W. G White, for the plaintiff.
G. M Stearns & A. M. Copeland, for the defendant.
Hampden.C Allen & Colburn, JJ., absent. W. Allen, J.
Execution should issue for the full value of all the estate of Otis Chapman that came to the hands of the administrators, for which they do not satisfactorily account. Pub. Sts. c. 143, § 20, cl. 3. The master, in finding that execution should issue only for the unpaid balance of the note of Church and Company, necessarily found that all the rest of the estate had been satisfactorily accounted for by coming to the hands of the distributees. There were no creditors; the widow and son of the intestate, the only distributees, undertook to settle the estate outside of the Probate Court; and no exception was taken to the principle upon which the master must have proceeded, that proof of facts which, if put into the form of an account in the Probate Court, would be sufficient, is a satisfactory accounting in this case. On no other ground could it be held that the defendant is not liable for the whole value of the estate; and that is not claimed.
The only ground upon which the master held that the defendant was liable for anything is, that the administrators were negligent in not collecting the note of Church and Company. If an administrator, in his account, asks to be allowed for a note inventoried but not collected, negligence in not collecting it would be a reason that he should stand charged with the full amount; and, if he accounted for that in the distribution, no damages could be recovered in a suit upon his bond. The fact that an administrator does not convert securities into money does not necessarily prove maladministration, and even fault in not collecting a doubtful note would ordinarily be cured, if the administrator should stand charged with it, and, being a distributee, should take it upon his share. The note in the case at bar was one which the intestate had held for eight years before his decease, and it was against responsible persons, who were always prompt in the payment of interest, and who, it is found, as we understand the report, would have paid the principal upon demand, until their ability to do so was impaired in consequence of a public calamity which could not have been anticipated. There was no occasion for turning the assets into money; they were all to be distributed to the widow and son; and, if either of them desired to take the note, the administrators would be justified in not collecting it, without regard to the fact that the debtors resided in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harmon v. Weston
...enforce payment of the amount equitably due that process is to issue. Pub. St. c. 143, § 20; R. L. c. 149, § 31; c. 177, § 10; Shurtleff v. Ferry, 138 Mass. 259. The amount to be paid is not necessarily the whole amount for which account has not been rendered in the probate court, but that ......
-
Harmon v. Weston
... ... amount equitably due that process is to issue. Pub. St. c ... 143,§ 20; R. L. c. 149, § 31; c. 177, § 10; Shurtleff v ... Ferry, 138 Mass. 259. The amount to be paid is not ... necessarily the whole amount for which account has not been ... rendered in the ... ...
-
Robinson v. Simmons
...a court of equity cannot look behind the nominal parties to the real parties in interest. This can be done even at law. See Shurtleff v. Ferry, 138 Mass. 259; Stevens v. Palmer, 15 Gray, 505; Poole Munday, 103 Mass. 174. As to the 15 bonds, "sold by Geo. W. Simmons before his appointment," ......
-
Cotton v. Atlas Nat. Bank
...Phillips v. Rogers, 12 Metc. 405;Hapgood v. Houghton, 22 Pick. 480;Watson v. Watson, 128 Mass. 152;Smith v. Wells, 134 Mass. 11;Shurtleff v. Ferry, 138 Mass. 259. The facts all show conclusively that the renewals were not intended as extinguishments of the original debt, and that neither pa......