Nesbit v. Cande

92 N.E. 766, 206 Mass. 437, 1910 Mass. LEXIS 823
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 18, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 92 N.E. 766 (Nesbit v. Cande) 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
Nesbit v. Cande, 92 N.E. 766, 206 Mass. 437, 1910 Mass. LEXIS 823 (Mass. 1910).

Opinion

Sheldon, J.

Upon the death of Mrs. Slater without issue and leaving an estate amounting to less than $5,000, her surviving husband took a vested right of inheritance as statutory heir in her real estate. R. L. c. 140, § 3. Eastham v. Barrett, 152 Mass. 56. Howe v. Berry, 168 Mass. 418. Holmes v. Holmes, 194 Mass. 552, 559. Peabody v. Cook, 201 Mass. 218. The rights of her other heirs under R. L. c. 133, are by § 1 of that chapter expressly made subject to the right of her husband. This right of a surviving husband or wife is not abridged by the other provisions contained in R. L. c. 140, § 3, cl. 3, as amended by St. 1905, c. 256. These provisions merely afford a convenient means of ascertaining and adjudicating the facts upon which that right depends and so determining its existence and extent. [440]*440Accordingly, on the husband’s subsequent decease, his heirs, or if he left none, then the Commonwealth by escheat (R. L. c. 14.0, § 3, cl. 3) became entitled to the property and to the surplus of its proceeds after payment of his wife’s debts.

This petitioner is not interested in the question whether these proceeds should have been ordered to be paid to the respondent as administrator of his estate, or to his heirs, if any, or to the Commonwealth. Having no concern with that question, she is not aggrieved by the decree made.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Green's Case
111 N.E.2d 204 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1953)
McCarthy v. Halloran
11 Mass. App. Div. 298 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1946)
Ballard v. Maguire
56 N.E.2d 891 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Seavey v. O'Brien
29 N.E.2d 196 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Hite v. Hite
17 N.E.2d 176 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Spring v. Curry
157 N.E. 595 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
New England Trust Co. v. Morse
136 N.E. 835 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Gilmore v. Gilmore
134 N.E. 236 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Monroe v. Cooper
235 Mass. 33 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Hayden v. Keown
232 Mass. 259 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Naylor v. Nourse
121 N.E. 26 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Ellis v. Hunt
228 Mass. 39 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Walden v. Walden
100 N.E. 649 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 N.E. 766, 206 Mass. 437, 1910 Mass. LEXIS 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesbit-v-cande-mass-1910.