Chamberlain v. Anthony

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Chamberlain v. Anthony

43 A. 646, 21 R.I. 331, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 71

DecidedJune 10, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A. 646 (Chamberlain v. Anthony) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chamberlain v. Anthony, 43 A. 646, 21 R.I. 331, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 71 (R.I. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) Gen. Laws E. I. cap. 220, § 1, provides that the Probate Court may prescribe the form of bonds to be given by executors. We think the language is broad enough to permit the court to require, in case there is more *332 than one executor, a joint bond or several bonds, as it may deem proper. As the bonds given by executors must necessarily provide for the faithful administration of the estate, it is difficult to perceive to what the word “form” relates, unless it be to the question whether the bond should be a joint bond or several bonds by each. Inasmuch as, by the statute of constructions, a word importing the singular number may be construed to extend to and include the plural, we do not see that the fact that in Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 212, § 19; the word “bond” is used instead of “bonds” is a sufficient reason against giving to cap. 220, § 1, the construction which we have.

Clarence A. Alclrich, for appellant. Cooke & Angelí, for appellees.

(2) The decree appealed from is irregular in that it does not require either a joint bond or separate bonds to be given, but leaves it to the parties to determine whether the bonds to be given shall be joint or several.

The decree is reversed, and the proceeding is remitted to the Probate Court of Central Falls with direction to enter a decree as to the form of the bond.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) Gen. Laws E. I. cap. 220, § 1, provides that the Probate Court may prescribe the form of bonds to be given by executors. We think the language is broad enough to permit the court to require, in case there is more *332 than one executor, a joint bond or several bonds, as it may deem proper. As the bonds given by executors must necessarily provide for the faithful administration of the estate, it is difficult to perceive to what the word “form” relates, unless it be to the question whether the bond should be a joint bond or several bonds by each. Inasmuch as, by the statute of constructions, a word importing the singular number may be construed to extend to and include the plural, we do not see that the fact that in Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 212, § 19; the word “bond” is used instead of “bonds” is a sufficient reason against giving to cap. 220, § 1, the construction which we have.

Clarence A. Alclrich, for appellant. Cooke & Angelí, for appellees.

(2) The decree appealed from is irregular in that it does not require either a joint bond or separate bonds to be given, but leaves it to the parties to determine whether the bonds to be given shall be joint or several.

The decree is reversed, and the proceeding is remitted to the Probate Court of Central Falls with direction to enter a decree as to the form of the bond.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A. 646, 21 R.I. 331, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chamberlain-v-anthony-ri-1899.