TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brown v. Anderson

Ezra Brown and Others versus Mary Anderson, Administratrix, &c.

Brown v. Anderson, 13 Mass. 201 (1816)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1816
Citations
13 Mass. 201
Cited by 32
Headnotes
A promise by an administrator to pay a debt of the intestate will not take the demand out of the statute of 1791, c. 28, limiting suits against administrators to four years, f t See Dawes, Judge, .fyc. vs. Shed el al, 15 Mass. Rep. 6.
Summary
Case upon four several promissory notes made to the plaintiffs by Edward Anderson, the defendant’s intestate. The defendant pleads in bar (protesting that she had not, at the commencement of this action, nor at any time before nor since, any goods or estate of the said Edward Anderson, deceased, in her hands), that, more than four years next before the commencement of this suit, namely, at, &c., on, &e., she was duly appointed administratrix of the goods and estate of the said Edward Anderson, and then and there accepted said trust; and afterwards, and within three months thereafter, namely, at, &c., on, &c., she gave due notice thereof, as the law requires ; and this, &c. The plaintiffs reply, that the estate of the said Edward Anderson is * fully sufficient to pay all the just debts which the said Edward Anderson owed at the time of his decease, together with the charges of the last sickness and funeral expenses of said deceased, and the charges of administration upon his estate ; and that they, the plaintiffs, at, &c., on, &c., and within four years next after the defendant’s acceptance of the trust of administratrix of the estate of the said deceased, exhibited and presented to the defendant the several promissory notes declared on in this action, the same being then all due and payable, and demanded of her the payment thereof; and the said Mary, in consideration of the solvency of the estate of the said Edward Anderson, and of its sufficiency to pay all the debts, &c., of the deceased, promised the plaintiffs, in her said capacity, to pay them the amount of their said several demands declared on, in a reasonable time ; and aver, that a reasonable time had elapsed before the commencement of this action, & c. To this replication the defendant demurs generally, and the plaintiffs join in the demurrer.

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.

Curia.

The provision of the statute of 1791, upon which the defendant’s plea in bar is predicated, was intended for the benefit of the estates of deceased persons, and of those interested in them; and not for the personal convenience of the executors or administrators.

The general statute of limitations has always been considered as furnishing to debtors prima facie evidence of payment; and any counter evidence is admitted. An acknowledgment of the debt, therefore, by an executor or administrator, as well as by the original debtor, has been held to avoid that statute. But the statute we are now considering has no regard to the payment or non-payment of the debt ; it was designed to produce a speedy settlement of estates, that the heirs might be quieted. A promise of the administrator can, therefore, have no effect to bind tbe estate. He may decline pleading the statute ; but, if he does, without consent of the heirs, he may expose himself for his unfaithful conduct. The promise creates only a personal obligation on the part of the person making it; but cannot affect the estate, † Replication adjudged bad.

See Thompson vs. Brown et al., 16 Mass. Rep. 178

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 32 cases

View all citing references →
1818–1819: 41824–1825: 21826–1827: 11828–1829: 11830–1831: 21832–1833: 11836–1837: 11840–1841: 21848–1849: 21852–1853: 11858–1859: 11862–1863: 11864–1865: 11868–1869: 11870–1871: 11874–1875: 11882–1883: 11886–1887: 11894–1895: 11902–1903: 11910–1911: 11940–1941: 11948–1949: 21964–1965: 118182026peak 1818 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Doe ex dem Duval's heirs v. McLoskey1 Ala. 708 (1840)
  2. Smith v. Huie14 Ala. 201 (1848)
  3. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. v. Barnes48 N.H. 25 (1868)
  4. Fretwell v. McLemore52 Ala. 124 (1875)
  5. Willcox v. Smith26 Barb. 316 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1858)
  6. Dawes v. Shed15 Mass. 6 (1818)

Most recent

  1. Eddie v. Hanna v. Edward M. Plumer, Jr.331 F.2d 157 (1st Cir. 1964)
  2. Donovan v. O'connor14 Mass. App. Div. 242 (1949)
  3. Taylor v. United States88 N.E.2d 121 (Mass. 1949)
  4. Mulligan v. Hilton24 N.E.2d 676 (Mass. 1940)
  5. Dern v. Olsen110 P. 164 (Idaho 1910)
  6. Miller v. Ewing67 N.E. 292 (Ohio 1903)

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