Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Conn. 385

Winchell v. Allen

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided November 15, 1815

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1815-11-15

IN ERROR. THIS was a scire-facias in a process of foreign attachment against Israel Allen, as the debtor, &c. of Ezekiel Allen, brought to the county court of Hartford county. On the trial, it appeared that Reuben Allen bequeathed to Ezekiel Allen “ one hundred dollars, and his said Reuben’s wearing apparel, to be paid in grain or neat cattle in two years from his said Reuben’s decease ;” and appointed the defendant his executor. Reuben Mien died on the 4th of February 1810.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1815-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1991

4 state decisions

101815182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Swift, Ch. J.

¶1An executor cannot be considered as the debtor of a legatee. The claim is against the testator or his estate ; and the executor is merely the representative of the deceased. There cannot be a debt due from the executor within the meaning of the statute. Nor can a person, like an executor, deriving his authority from the law, and bound to perform it according to the rules prescribed by law, be considered as a trustee, agent, attorney or factor within the statute ; and this for the best of reasons. In the common case of agents, trustees and factors, the creditor can easily place himself in the shoes of the absconding debtor, and prosecute his claim without inconvenience to the garnishee. But such would not be the case with an executor. It would not only embarrass and delay the settlement of estates, but would often draw them from courts of probate, where they ought to be settled, before the courts of common law, who would have no power to adjust and settle his accounts. Such an interference might produce much inconvenience, and prevent the executor from executing his office as the law directs. I am of opinion that the judgment ought to be affirmed.

¶2In this opinion the other Judges severally concurred.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/1/conn/385 · .json · Public domain