Tucker v. Whaley
| Decision Date | 06 April 1877 |
| Citation | 11 R.I. 543 |
| Parties | THOMAS T. TUCKER v. WILLIAM E. H. WHALEY. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
A died without leaving sufficient food for the immediate use of his cattle. B. purchased of C. for A.'s estate the needed food. B. was subsequently appointed administrator of A. In an action by C. against B. personally to recover the price of such food, the judge instructed the jury that if credit was given to the estate, the verdict should be for the defendant if credit was given to the defendant, the verdict should be for the plaintiff; and that the jury should determine to which party credit really was given:-
Held, error, as credit to the estate if it means anything means credit to the administrator, who may be personally sued on a contract made by him for the benefit of the estate after the intestate's death.
Held, further, that the appointment of B. as administrator related back to the time of purchase.
Query, whether B. could have been charged had he remained a stranger to the estate?
EXCEPTIONS to the Court of Common Pleas.
Assumpsit, originally brought before the Justice Court of South Kingston, taken by the defendant's appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, and after a trial and verdict brought to this court by the plaintiff's exceptions.
It appears from the bill of exceptions that one Perkins died without leaving sufficient food for his cattle. The day after the funeral the defendant and another went to the plaintiff and obtained $30 worth of hay to feed the cattle of Perkins. Subsequently the defendant was appointed administrator of Perkins's estate. At the trial in the Court of Common Pleas the defendant testified that he gave the plaintiff express notice when the hay was bought that it was for the Perkins estate, and that the plaintiff must look to the estate for his pay. The plaintiff denied this, saying that he sold the hay to the defendant and did not know where it was going, though he understood from what was said by the defendant and his companion that the hay was going to Mrs Perkins for the stock. The judge instructed the jury that it was wholly a question of fact. If credit was given to the estate, the verdict should be for the defendant; if credit was given to the defendant, the verdict should be for the plaintiff; and the jury should determine to which party credit really was given. To these instructions the plaintiff excepted, and after verdict for the defendant brough...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilder Grain Co. v. Felker
...in various aspects from Edwards v. Ela, 5 Allen, 87, 90; Chase v. Corcoran, 106 Mass. 286; Bacon v. Parker, 12 Conn. 212, 216; Tucker v. Whaley, 11 R.I. 543; O'Reilly v. Kelly, 22 R.I. 151, 46 A. L.R.A. 483, 84 Am.St.Rep. 833; Murray's Estate, 56 Or. 132, 136-138, 107 P. 19; Bryant's Estate......
-
Giguere v. Webber
...cannot be appointed in time to act in this behalf. O'Reilly v. Kelly, 22 R.I. 151, 46 A. 681, 50 L.R.A. 483, 84 Am.St.Rep. 833; Tucker v. Whaley, 11 R.I. 543; Rice v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co., 195 Mass. 507, 81 N.E. 285. The presumption is, even in the case of the widow of the deceas......
-
International Tracers of America v. Hard
...administratrix of the Eric Hard estate, Tracers relies on Wilder Grain Co. v. Felker, 296 Mass. 177, 5 N.E.2d 207 (1936) and Tucker v. Whaley, 11 R.I. 543 (1877), which we find distinguishable on their facts. These cases involve claims against an estate for cattle feed needed to prevent the......
-
Allsworth v. Scully, 495-A
...that the legislature adopted § 33-13-4. The plaintiff's appeal is denied and dismissed and the judgment appealed from affirmed. 1 Tucker v. Whaley, 11 R.I. 543; Buxton v. Barrett, 14 R.I. 40; Knowles v. Whaley, 15 R.I. 97, 23 A. 144; Johnson, Petitioner, 15 R.I. 438, 8 A. 248; Moulton v. Sm......