Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Mass. 50

Hooker v. Bancroft

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 29, 1826

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1826-09-29

<p>Where an administratrix, having commenced an action against a supposed debtor to die intestate’s estate, was informed by him that he did. not owe any thing, and that she could not maintain the action, but that to prevent her from incurring a large bill of costs, and to save himself the trouble and expense of a trial, he would pay her a sum towards the costs, and would give a gratuity to the heirs, and he accordingly did so, and the suit was withdrawn; and in an action on the administration bond, it was found by the jury, that there was no just claim or debt in favor of the estate against the supposed debtor,—it was held) that the administratrix had not broken the bond, by not accounting for the sum so paid to the heirs.</p> <p>Although an administrator is bound to account for all the property which comes into his hands, yet, if after he has returned an inventory to the judge of probate, he should come to the knowledge and possession of property not included in it, he is not required to return a second inventory</p>

Decided 1826-09-29

Per Curiam.

¶1With respect to the Sheldon note for 25 dollars, if it was received on account of the estate, or if it *55was received as a compensation for relinquishing the action, without doubt the administratrix ought to account for it; but this was a matter to be tried by the jury, and the instruction of the judge, we think, was sufficiently liberal for the plaintiff, — “if the note was given in discharge of any just claim in favor of the estate, it was a fraud upon the creditors.” The administratrix would have been answerable for the whole amount of the debt discharged, on an allegation of waste.

¶2In regard to the Palmer note, there seems to have been nothing fraudulent or unfair. The administratrix has accounted for as much or more than she would have had to account for, if she had kept that note and sold the equity of redemption with the whole incumbrance of 215 dollars The suggestion, that from her not accounting specifically for this note, the creditors may have been led into' expense by supposing that this sum was not accounted for, has some weight; but this respects only the mode of accounting, and if a reasonable and just account is rendered, she is not bound to any particular form.

¶3The statute provides only that one inventory shall be returned.1 For all property received subsequently to such return the administrator is bound to account,2 but not in the form of an inventory. This is required neither by the statute, nor by the condition of the bond.

¶4 Judgment on the verdict.

¶5 See Revised Stat. c. 65, § 1.

¶6 See White v. Swain, 3 Pick. 365; Dexter v. Arnold, 3 Mason,-284; Potter v. Titcomb, 7 Greenl. 315.

¶7If after an order of distribution further assets come to the hands of the executor or administrator, the judge of probate shall make such further de cree or decrees for the distribution thereof, as the case may require. Reviseá Stat. c. 68, § 18.
/21/mass/50 · .json · Public domain