Wilder v. Orcutt
| Decision Date | 21 September 1926 |
| Citation | 257 Mass. 100,153 N.E. 332 |
| Parties | WILDER v. ORCUTT et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; M. Morton, Judge.
Bill in equity by Wesley M. Wilder against Frank A. Orcutt and others to determine interest of named defendant in a decedent estate and to apply it to payment of plaintiff's debt. Demurrer to bill was overruled, and case reported. Order overruling demurrer sustained.
A. S. Howard, of Lowell, for plaintiff.
L. K. Clark, of Boston, for defendants.
The plaintiff alleges in his bill that Frank A. Orcutt is indebted to him in the sum of $4,464.47; that William A. Orcutt died intestate, leaving as his only next of kin and heirs at law the defendants, Mary E. Perry and Frank A. Orcutt; that Perry was appointed administratrix of the estate of William A. Orcutt by the probate court of Franklin county; that William A. left an estate of approximately $9,000 in personal property and $2,900 in real estate; that the debts of the deceased were small and Frank A.'s interest in the estate approximated $6,500; that the defendants have conspired to delay and hinder and defraud the creditors of Frank A., including the plaintiff, by procuring Perry to make fictitious claims against the estate for care and nursing furnished William A. and his wife, in order to ‘extinguish the interest of said estate Frank A. Orcutt in the property of said estate and keep his creditors, including the plaintiff, from reaching the same’; that she received and retained ‘in her individual capacity’ property of the value of $13,000 in which the defendant Orcutt has a one-half interest; that in pursuance of said conspiracy she reatined this property so that Orcutt's creditors could not attach it; that his share is held under a secret trust for his use and benefit; that in pursuance of the conspiracy Perry has filed in the probate court an account wherein she credits herself as administratrix with having paid to herself on account of board and unrsing, the sum of $12,997.06, this being the entire property of the estate; that Frank A. has assented to the account; that Perry, in pursuance of the conspiracy, has filed a final account in the probate court, crediting herself with the money received from the sale of the real estate, leaving no balance in her hands, both of which accounts have been allowed by the probate court without notice to the plaintiff and without his knowledge.
The plaintiff prays that his debt be established; that the value of the defendant Orcutt's interest in the estate of William Orcutt, retained by Perry, be determined; that she be ordered to pay this amount so determined to be applied to the payment of the defendant Orcutt's debt to the plaintiff. The defendant demurred.
Probate courts are courts of superior and general jurisdiction. G. L. c. 215, § 2. The final decree of the probate court allowing the accounts of the administratrix which showed that there were no assets of the estate for distribution could not be attacked collaterally even if brought about by the fraud of the parties. Green v. Gaskill, 175...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Porter
...courts of superior and general jurisdiction. See further Davis v. McGraw, 206 Mass. 294, 92 N.E. 332,138 Am.St.Rep. 398;Wilder v. Orcutt, 257 Mass. 100, 153 N.E. 332;Farquehar v. New England Trust Co., 261 Mass. 209, 212, 158 N.E. 836;Kennedy v. Simmons, 308 Mass. 431, 432, 32 N.E.2d 215;Co......
-
Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz
...Probate Court in this context. The Probate Court is a court of superior and general jurisdiction. G.L. c. 215, § 2. Wilder v. Orcutt, 257 Mass. 100, 153 N.E. 332 (1926). The Probate Court is given equity jurisdiction by statute. G.L. c. 215, § 6. It has been given the specific grant of equi......
-
Farquhar v. New England Trust Co.
...v. Huse & Carleton, Inc., 254 Mass. 359, 150 N. E. 230. There is nothing contrary to this great current of decisions in Wilder v. Orcutt, 257 Mass. 100, 153 N. E. 332. The general principle that the decree of a probate court cannot be attacked collaterally is there recognized and affirmed. ......
-
Connor v. Morse
...142 Mass. 231, 7 N.E. 730;Habib v. Evans, 222 Mass. 480, 483, 111 N.E. 362;Noyes v. Noyes, 233 Mass. 55, 62, 123 N.E. 395;Wilder v. Orcutt, 257 Mass. 100, 153 N.E. 332;Byron v. Concord National Bank, Mass., 13 N.E.2d 13. The principle is stated with the citation of many cases in 34 C. J. at......