Alden v. Stebbins

99 Mass. 616
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 15, 1868·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Wells, J.

The case of Chenery v. Webster, 8 Allen, 76, is decisive against this action. The real estate in question was [617]*617inventoried, and, by statute, was assets for the payment of debts, to be converted and applied in the mode which the statute prescribes. If the plaintiff had sued her demand within the two years limited for that purpose, the defence of plene administravit could not have been maintained. Hildreth v. Marshall, 7 Gray, 167.

The fifty dollars received for rent after the two years had expired does not appear to be assets ” at all, but to belong to the heirs; and so must the real estate also, unless there was some fact to authorize the sale, which does not appear in this statement. But the plaintiff’s right to recover does not depend upon the validity or invalidity of the sale. She is barred by the statute ; and, if she can have any remedy, it must be under the St. of 1861, c. 174. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Alden v. Stebbins, 99 Mass. 616 (Mass. 1868).

99 Mass. 616 (Alden v. Stebbins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Breen v. Scanlon
1 Mass. App. Div. 101 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1936)
Fay v. Haskell
93 N.E. 641 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Copeland v. Fifield
62 N.E. 249 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Shute v. Wilkins
40 N.E. 848 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Choate v. Jacobs
136 Mass. 297 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Littlefield v. Eaton
74 Me. 516 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1883)
Brooks v. Jackson
125 Mass. 307 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1878)
Aiken v. Morse
104 Mass. 277 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1870)