Barrett v. Barrett
This text of 25 Mass. 342 (Barrett v. Barrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The objection that the two actions are not in the same right, nor between the same parties, is grounded on mere matter of form. Daniel Barrett is answerable individually upon the bond, and the judge of probate is only a trustee for the person to be benefited by the action brought in his name.1 The judgment is virtually just as if the action had been brought by Medad Barrett for the legacy. It is right therefore that the two judgments, so far as respects the debt or damages, should be set off.
But as to the costs, we think there ought not to be a set-off They may have been advanced by the attorney. This is a question addressed to the discretion of the Court.2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 Mass. 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-barrett-mass-1829.