Holt v. Libby
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions from the superior court. Trustee process. The trustees disclosed that they were the executors of the last will of Edward Libby, who died September 11, 1886; that the principal defendant had a legacy under the will of two hundred dollars, and was indebted to the estate for a promissory note dated October 21, 1876, for one hundred and thirty dollars, payable on demand with interest.
Read the full summary
On exceptions from the superior court. Trustee process. The trustees disclosed that they were the executors of the last will of Edward Libby, who died September 11, 1886; that the principal defendant had a legacy under the will of two hundred dollars, and was indebted to the estate for a promissory note dated October 21, 1876, for one hundred and thirty dollars, payable on demand with interest. It was agreed that the note became barred by the statute of limitations, October 21, 1882. The exceptions were to the ruling of the court discharging the trustees. cited: R. S., c. 86, § § 36, 64, 66 ;…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
It is a general rule, in the settlement of legacies by an executor, that he may retain the legacy, the whole or a sufficient portion, in satisfaction of the legatee’s debt to the estate, if the testator does not indicate, either in the terms of the bequest or in other parts of the will, that it shall be otherwise. This is the rule both in law and equity.
The English practice goes further, and allows the rule to prevail, on the idea of lien, as to debts which have become barred by the statute of limitations. The leading case maintaining the English rule seems to be Courtney v. Williams, 3 Hare,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Allen v. EdwardsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
3Cited by13 opinions
- Boden v. MierNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
- Frank v. WareheimCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1939
- In Re Estate of LindmeyerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Luscher v. Security Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- Avery Power MacHinery Company v. McAdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.