Leverett v. Harris

7 Mass. 292
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1811
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 7 Mass. 292 (Leverett v. Harris) 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
Leverett v. Harris, 7 Mass. 292 (Mass. 1811).

Opinion

Bigelow, for the tenant, was stopped by the Court; whose opin ion (absente Parsons, C. J.) was afterwards delivered by

Sedgwick, J.

In this case the demandant is entitled to recover, unless the title set up by the tenant shall be adjudged sufficient to bar his right of inheritance.

By a statute of the provincial legislature, (8 W. 3, c. 4,) it was enacted that in case of a deficiency of personal assets [ * 296 ] * to pay the debts or legacies of any deceased person, ' “ upon representation thereof, and making the same to appear unto the Superior Court of Judicature, holden for or within the same county, where such deceased last dwelt, the Court are hereby empowered to license and authorize the executor or administrator of such estate to make sale of all or any part of the houses [249]*249and lands of the deceased, so far as shall be necessary to satisfy the just debts, which the deceased owed at the time of his death, and legacies bequeathed in and by the last will and testament of the deceased.”

The same power was afterwards extended to the Court of Common Pleas.

By this statute, the certificate of the judge of probate, of the insufficiency of personal assets, and the necessity of sale, was not required. The court might ascertain the truth of those facts, upon any “ representation thereof,” or by any mode of “ making the same to appear.” As, therefore, the court was not restricted to any species of evidence, and as no certificate of the judge of probate was at all necessary, it seems very clear that no deficiency or irregularity in such certificate can invalidate the proceedings of the court, which might have been, and we are to presume were, founded on sufficient evidence.

The same answer may be given to the remarks, which have been made with regard to the insufficiency of the petition of the administratrix.

It will be admitted that the order of the Court of Common Pleas purported to bestow upon the administratrix sufficient authority to convey the demanded premises ; and that she complied with all the requirements of the law, in the proceedings subsequent to the order of court, and in her conveyance. The grantee purchased in reliance on the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction. To deprive him of the property he thus acquired, would, in our opinion, be to act in opposition to the most established principles, and very much endanger the security of titles,

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

Related

Blanchard v. Webster
62 N.H. 467 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1883)
Allen v. Trustees of Ashley School Fund
102 Mass. 262 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1869)
Winn v. Averill
24 Vt. 283 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1852)
McDade v. Burch
7 Ga. 559 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1849)
Stewart v. Bennett
1 Fla. 437 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1847)
Clark v. Brown
18 Wend. 115 (New York Supreme Court, 1837)
Heath v. Wells
22 Mass. 139 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1827)
Perkins v. Fairfield
11 Mass. 227 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1814)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Mass. 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leverett-v-harris-mass-1811.