TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hall v. Hall

Joseph Hall, versus William Hall, Administrator

Hall v. Hall, 1 Mass. 76 (1804)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1804
Citations
1 Mass. 76
Cited by 18
Headnotes
An administrator, to support his charges in an administration account for payment of taxes, must produce the receipt of the collector. Quaere if he must not also pro’ e the assessment of the taxes.
Summary
This was an appeal from a decree of the judge of probate for this county. The contest in this case was relative to several items of charge in the account of the administrator which had been allowed by the judge; among which were divers charges for moneys paid to a collector of taxes assessed on the estate of the intestate. The administrator did not produce receipts from the collector, but his counsel offered to prove by the testimony of a witness that the taxes had been paid by the administrator to the collector, according to those items of charge in the account.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The whole Court (Strong, Sedgwick, Sewall, and Thacher, justices) were clearly of opinion that the evidence offered was not the best evidence which the nature of the case admitted ; that the receipts of the collector were better evidence than the evidence offered ; (a) which might be obtained, and should therefore be produced. Strong and Sedgwick, justices, said that they were strongly inclined to think that the assessment of the taxes ought also to be proved, that it might appear to the Court that they were a legal claim on the administrator. The other two justices seemed to think it would be sufficient to produce the receipts of the collector without proving the assessment.

[The receipts of the collector were not alone evidence of the amount paid. This could only be proved by the collector or another witness. — Ed.]

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1826–1827: 11842–1843: 21850–1851: 11852–1853: 21860–1861: 21864–1865: 11866–1867: 11868–1869: 11872–1873: 11880–1881: 11884–1885: 11888–1889: 11890–1891: 11894–1895: 11936–1937: 118262026peak 1842 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tryon v. Butler9 Tex. 553 (1853)
  2. Cutrona v. Sicard1 Mass. App. Div. 1 (1936)
  3. Pond v. Ennis69 Ill. 341 (1873)
  4. Waldrop v. Leonard22 S.C. 118 (1885)
  5. First National Bank v. Jaggers31 Md. 38 (1869)
  6. Farnham v. Hildreth32 Barb. 277 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1860)

Most recent

  1. Cutrona v. Sicard1 Mass. App. Div. 1 (1936)
  2. Chesebro v. Barme39 N.E. 1033 (Mass. 1895)
  3. Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. v. Bolding69 Miss. 255 (1891)
  4. Lindsey v. Delano43 N.W. 218 (Iowa 1889)
  5. Waldrop v. Leonard22 S.C. 118 (1885)
  6. Bradford v. Rogers2 Posey 57 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1880)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list