Spring v. Curry
| Decision Date | 08 July 1927 |
| Citation | 260 Mass. 556,157 N.E. 595 |
| Parties | SPRING v. CURRY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Probate Court, Suffolk County.
Petition for instructions by James W. Spring, administrator of Andrew J. Curry, deceased, against Winifred F. Curry and others. Decree of the probate court directing payment affirmed.
Frederic A. Turner, of Boston, for appellants.
Phipps, Durgin & Cook, George V. Phipps, and P. Gerald Ryan, all of Boston, for respondent.
Andrew J. Curry died intestate February 5, 1917. He left a widow, but no issue. The inventory of his estate disclosed personal property to the amount of $65.53 and equities in real estate valued at $6,200. The administrator was licensed to sell the real estate. After deducting certain charges and payments, the widow was paid various sums amounting in all to $3,763.51, this amount being the total net value of the entire estate personal and real, exclusive of certain income or rents from the real estate to the amount of $1,139.54, now in the hands of the administrator, who brings this petition asking to be instructed as to whom to pay this sum. The widow contends that this net balance of $1,139.54 belongs to her as statutory heir of her husband. The brothers and sisters of Andrew J. Curry contend that the real estate descended to them; that, until sold or set apart, the rents or income belonged to them.
[1] The whole amount of the estate left by Andrew J. Curry was less than $5,000 in value. By R. L. c. 140, § 3, cl. 3, under which statute the rights of the parties are to be determined, as the deceased died intestate and without issue the surviving widow took $5,000. Upon his death she took a vested interest in his real estate as statutory heir. Her right under the statute as a statutory heir of her husband, there being no issue and the estate being less in amount than $5,000, is not abridged by the provisions in the statute for the setting out of the real estate. R. L. c. 140, § 3, cl. 3; St. 1905, c. 256.
[2][3] It was not essential for the widow to apply to the probate court for the sale or mortgage of the real estate or to obtain a decree setting out the real estate to her. ‘These provisions merely afford a convenient means of ascertaining and adjudicating the facts upon which that right depends and so determining its existence and extent.’ Nesbit v. Cande, 206 Mass. 437, 439, 440, 92 N. E. 766. As the estate was less than $5,000 in amount, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hite v. Hite
...spouse and thereby took an estate, not in the property of the latter, but in the property of a third person. See Spring v. Curry, 260 Mass. 556, 559, 157 N.E. 595;Old Colony Trust Co. v. Sullivan, 268 Mass. 318, 167 N.E. 648. The intestate was a nonresident and his estate located here must ......
-
Hite v. Hite
...under the former before its amendment by St. 1917, c. 303. Nesbit v. Cande, 206 Mass. 437 . Naylor v. Nourse, 231 Mass. 341 . Spring v. Curry, 260 Mass. 556 . The preference, in the form of either $5,000 or all the property if the estate is less than this amount, is not available to the sur......
- St. James Bldg. Corp. v. Foote
-
Seavey v. O'Brien
...the surviving widow, upon the death of her husband without issue, "took a vested right in his real estate as statutory heir." In Spring v. Curry, 260 Mass. 556, a similar apparently decided upon R. L. c. 140, Section 3, as amended by the statute of 1905, it was held that the widow's vested ......