Haynes v. Wells

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Haynes v. Wells

23 Mass. 462

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 26, 1828

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Mass. 462 (Haynes v. Wells) 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

Haynes v. Wells, 23 Mass. 462 (Mass. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think the articles which are the subject [466]*466of this action, were rightfully in the possession of the overseers, and as administration was not taken out within the thirty days, they had a right to sell to reimburse themselves, accounting to the administrator for the surplus.

The objection that one of the overseers was a purchaser, rests on a principle of chancery rather than of common law, that a trustee to sell shall not himself be a purchaser.¹ The object of this principle is the prevention of frauds. It has been applied in the case of trustees eo nomine, executors, &c., but we do not think it applicable to a case like the present. We do not know that it has ever been carried so far as to prevent a sale by a corporation and a purchase by an individual member. Now the overseers were a quasi corporation, and acting for another, the town ; and the sale being fair, we do not see any good reason why an individual overseer might not purchase.

Judgment of nonsuit affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

We think the articles which are the subject [466]*466of this action, were rightfully in the possession of the overseers, and as administration was not taken out within the thirty days, they had a right to sell to reimburse themselves, accounting to the administrator for the surplus.

The objection that one of the overseers was a purchaser, rests on a principle of chancery rather than of common law, that a trustee to sell shall not himself be a purchaser.¹ The object of this principle is the prevention of frauds. It has been applied in the case of trustees eo nomine, executors, &c., but we do not think it applicable to a case like the present. We do not know that it has ever been carried so far as to prevent a sale by a corporation and a purchase by an individual member. Now the overseers were a quasi corporation, and acting for another, the town ; and the sale being fair, we do not see any good reason why an individual overseer might not purchase.

Judgment of nonsuit affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Mass. 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-wells-mass-1828.