Ogden v. Pattee

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Ogden v. Pattee

21 N.E. 227, 149 Mass. 82, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 121

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 6, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 21 N.E. 227 (Ogden v. Pattee) 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

Ogden v. Pattee, 21 N.E. 227, 149 Mass. 82, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 121 (Mass. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, J.

1. The court is of the opinion that the specific legacy of the bond carried the bond in such form as the testator left it, and therefore, that if, as seems to be conceded, the overdue negotiable coupon was physically attached to it at the testator’s death, the coupon passed with the bond.

2. The second count is for interest on a pecuniary legacy between August 10,1886, one year from the testatrix’s death, and May 25, 1887, the date when the legacy was paid. The defendants rely upon the fact disclosed by the count, that the will was not proved until January 21,1887. But interest “ does not depend upon demand or default.” It “ follows as an accretion to the principal legacy.” Kent v. Dunham, 106 Mass. 586, 591. The administrators will not be charged personally, and it may be presumed that the estate was receiving interest on the fund, although not in the administrators’ hands. See Wood v. Penoyre, 13 Ves. 326 ; Sitwell v. Bernard, 6 Ves. 520, 539.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Holmes, J.

1. The court is of the opinion that the specific legacy of the bond carried the bond in such form as the testator left it, and therefore, that if, as seems to be conceded, the overdue negotiable coupon was physically attached to it at the testator’s death, the coupon passed with the bond.

2. The second count is for interest on a pecuniary legacy between August 10,1886, one year from the testatrix’s death, and May 25, 1887, the date when the legacy was paid. The defendants rely upon the fact disclosed by the count, that the will was not proved until January 21,1887. But interest “ does not depend upon demand or default.” It “ follows as an accretion to the principal legacy.” Kent v. Dunham, 106 Mass. 586, 591. The administrators will not be charged personally, and it may be presumed that the estate was receiving interest on the fund, although not in the administrators’ hands. See Wood v. Penoyre, 13 Ves. 326 ; Sitwell v. Bernard, 6 Ves. 520, 539.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 N.E. 227, 149 Mass. 82, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogden-v-pattee-mass-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack