TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

M'Gooch v. M'Gooch

Polly M'Gooch, versus Alexander M'Gooch

M'Gooch v. M'Gooch, 4 Mass. 348 (1808)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1808
Citations
4 Mass. 348
Headnotes
The widow of a deceased intestate is exclusively entitled to the administration of his estate, unless there be among his next of kin a suitable person, whom the judge of probate may think fit to join with her in the trust, or to commit administration solely.
Summary
This was an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court for this county, whereby administration of the estate of John M’Gooch, deceased, who was the husband of the appellant, and son of the respondent, had been committed to them jointly. By the reasons of appeal, it appeared that the deceased left a child, an infant, who was still living; and that the respondent was a debtor to the estate of the deceased in a large sum, upon an unsettled account. The appellant claimed the administration alone, contending that, under the statute of 1783, c. 36, 6, she was entitled to it, the next of kin being in this case under twenty-one years of age; and that the judge of probate has no authority to grant administration to an j other, until aftér citing the widow and next of kin, and their refusal or neglect to undertake the trust.

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.

By the Court.

The widow, if a suitable person to administer, is exclusively entitled to administration ; unless among the next of kin there is some fit person, whom the judge of * probate may prefer, or who, he may think, ought to be [ *349 J joined with the widow in a joint administration.

In the present case, an infant child is the only next of kin ; and he is incapable of the trust from his age. The decree of the court below must be reversed, and administration be granted to the appellant solely. For this purpose, the cause must be remitted to the judge.

How later courts describe this case

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

1831–1832: 11855–1856: 11871–1872: 11877–1878: 11903–1904: 11917–1918: 11933–1934: 118312026peak 1831 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Thomas v. Stickle32 Iowa 71 (1871)
  2. Hoyt v. Rothe163 P. 925 (Wash. 1917)
  3. Nelson v. Belmont5 Duer 310 (1856)
  4. State ex rel. Fansher v. Guinotte58 S.W.2d 1005 (Mo. Ct. App. 1933)
  5. King v. Kerr's Administrators5 Ohio 154 (1831)
  6. Morris v. Petero4 Haw. 23 (1878)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Fansher v. Guinotte58 S.W.2d 1005 (Mo. Ct. App. 1933)
  2. Hoyt v. Rothe163 P. 925 (Wash. 1917)
  3. Williams v. Williams24 App. D.C. 214 (D.C. Cir. 1904)
  4. Morris v. Petero4 Haw. 23 (1878)
  5. Thomas v. Stickle32 Iowa 71 (1871)
  6. Nelson v. Belmont5 Duer 310 (1856)

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