Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

59 Me. 214

Smith v. Smith

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1871

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1871-07-01

On report. Writ of entry wherein the plaintiffs demand one-sixth part of the premises referred to in the writ. .The premises were owned by one Isaiah Smith at the time of his death, intestate, April 14, 1846. The defendant is one of six children left by said Isaiah, and was in possession of the premises, claiming title to so much as he had not disclaimed.

Relies on Quarles v. Quarles · Nesmith v. Dinsmore

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1961

4 state decisions

101871188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Appleton, C. J.

¶1The facts offered to be proved would constitute a perfect defense. Quarles v. Quarles, 4 Mass. 680. The ancestor of the demandants, in 1833, received his “ full share ” of all his father’s estate, and acknowledged the same in writing, and relinquished all his “right, title, and interest in and under his estate at his decease, which he (I) should otherwise have had.” The sum thus received was his share of his father’s estate, both at the date of its reception as well as at that of his death. He had received all he could in any way be entitled legally or equitably to receive from the paternal estate.

¶2By stat. 1821, c. 51, § 40, advancements may be made of real or personal estate, and they may be proved by the acknowledgment, in writing, of the child to whom made, as in the case under consideration.

¶3The contract was one the parties were competent to make, and when made it was as binding on them as any other. Nesmith v. Dinsmoor, 17 N. H. 515. By it the ancestor of the demandants received his full share of all his father’s estate. About thirty-eight years have passed since the advance was made and was received in full of the recipient’s share. Twenty-five years have elapsed since the death of the demandants’ father. The estates of the father and grandfather of the demandants have long ago been settled. The parties interested and their heirs have acquiesced in this arrangement during the long period which has elapsed since it was made. No legal or equitable reason is perceived for disturbing it. By the agreement of parties the case is to stand for trial.

OuttiNg, Kent, Walton, Barrows, and DaneoRTH, JJ., concurred..
/59/me/214 · .json · Public domain