Chapin v. Kelly

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Chapin v. Kelly

81 N.E. 653, 196 Mass. 66, 1907 Mass. LEXIS 1046

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 19, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 N.E. 653 (Chapin v. Kelly) 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.

Bluebook

Chapin v. Kelly, 81 N.E. 653, 196 Mass. 66, 1907 Mass. LEXIS 1046 (Mass. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, J.

The only question in this case is whether at

the time the .action was brought the defendant was “ of sufficient ability ” within the meaning of those words as used in the statute. R. L. c. 87", § 78. He or rather his guardian had $890 on deposit in the savings bank. The claim of the Commonwealth amounted to $876, and there were some other claims. We are of opinion that upon the agreed facts the defendant was “of sufficient ability” within the meaning of the statute, and that there should be judgment for the plaintiff. Any other conclusion would, we think, be inconsistent with the purpose of the statute and would tend to preserve the estate for the benefit of the next of kin, rather than to require the guardian to expend it, as he is bound to do, for the benefit of his ward. See Chapin v. McCurdy, ante, 63.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Morton, J.

The only question in this case is whether at

the time the .action was brought the defendant was “ of sufficient ability ” within the meaning of those words as used in the statute. R. L. c. 87", § 78. He or rather his guardian had $890 on deposit in the savings bank. The claim of the Commonwealth amounted to $876, and there were some other claims. We are of opinion that upon the agreed facts the defendant was “of sufficient ability” within the meaning of the statute, and that there should be judgment for the plaintiff. Any other conclusion would, we think, be inconsistent with the purpose of the statute and would tend to preserve the estate for the benefit of the next of kin, rather than to require the guardian to expend it, as he is bound to do, for the benefit of his ward. See Chapin v. McCurdy, ante, 63.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 N.E. 653, 196 Mass. 66, 1907 Mass. LEXIS 1046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapin-v-kelly-mass-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack