Coffin v. Cottle

21 Mass. 454
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 26, 1827
StatusPublished

This text of 21 Mass. 454 (Coffin v. Cottle) 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
Coffin v. Cottle, 21 Mass. 454 (Mass. 1827).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think it very clear that the administrator had a lawful right to enter into the rule of reference; Dickey v. Sleeper, 13 Mass. R. 244; Whitney v. Cook, 5 Mass. R. 139;1 and that under this rule, whereby all demands between the plaintiff and the administrator of Russell were referred, the particular form of the counts, whether good or not at law, or whether rightly joined, is wholly immaterial. Forseth v. Shaw, 10 Mass. R. 253. If it appeared to the referees, that the money advanced by the plaintiff was on account of debts due from the estate of the intestate, we think they did right to allow them, although they might have become due and been paid after his death ; for if due, the administrator would have been obliged to pay them, and would have charged the amount in his administration account. The award of damages de bonis testatoris was correct, because the action was against the defendant as representative of that estate, and so far as appears in the case, the debts proved were all due from the intestate or his estate.

Judgment of C. C. P, affirmed.

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

Related

Whitney v. Cook
5 Mass. 139 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1809)
Forseth v. Shaw
10 Mass. 253 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1813)
Dickey v. Sleeper
13 Mass. 244 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1816)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 Mass. 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffin-v-cottle-mass-1827.