Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

50 Conn. 127

Hallock v. Smith

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 15, 1882

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1882-05-15

Civil action to recover the price of a yoke of oxen sold; brought before a justice of the peace, and, by appeal of the plaintiff, to the District Court of Litchfield County. Pacts found and case reserved for advice. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1935

7 state decisions

30188218901900191019201930decided

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 →

Carpenter, J.

¶1The defendant purchased of the plaintiff, on credit, a yoke of oxen to be used on a farm which he was carrying on as administrator. The defendant subsequently sold the oxen and used the avails to jeay for labor on the farm. This suit is brought to collect from the estate the price of the oxen.

¶2In Taylor v. Mygatt, 26 Conn., 184, this court held that an administrator in incurring expenses in settling the estate had no power to bind the estate by contract; that any expense thus incurred was a claim against him personally; but was not a claim that could be enforced against the estate. And this was held in respect to the probate fees and fees for professional services rendered for the administrator as such. This being so in respect 'to the ordinary *128expenses of administration, which were properly and necessarily incurred, it must be so and with more reason in regard to expenses which do not pertain to administration and which were improperly incurred. The case before us is of that character. It was no part of the administrator’s duty to carry on the farm, hire laborers, and buy and sell oxen. He and not the estate is responsible for any debt thus incurred.

¶3It is practically conceded that such is the law; but it is claimed that in equity the estate is liable. We cannot sanction this claim. In matters of this kind equity follows the law. Sound policy, both in law and equity, forbids an administrator as such from engaging in business except in special circumstances and for special purposes. The argument that the estate had the benefit of the oxen purchased assumes too much; it assumes that.the farm was carried on in the interest and for the benefit of the estate—the very thing which the law forbids.

¶4Judgment is advised for the defendant.

¶5In this opinion the other judges concurred.

/50/conn/127 · .json · Public domain