Dorr v. CommonWealth
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
On the 13th day of June, 1800, the General Court passed the following resolve, viz.—“ Whereas, it hath been represented to the General Court that Elias Norberg, otherwise called Elias Newbury, formerly of Sweden, and a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, is now dead, intestate ; that administration on his goods and effects, rights .and credits, has been duly committed by the judge of probate for the county of Suffolk, to Ebenezer Dorr, of Boston, in the same…
Read the full summary
On the 13th day of June, 1800, the General Court passed the following resolve, viz.—“ Whereas, it hath been represented to the General Court that Elias Norberg, otherwise called Elias Newbury, formerly of Sweden, and a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, is now dead, intestate ; that administration on his goods and effects, rights .and credits, has been duly committed by the judge of probate for the county of Suffolk, to Ebenezer Dorr, of Boston, in the same county; that there is in the hands of said administrator a large sum of money, the estate of said intestate, to which…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
(Dana, C. J., Strong, Sedgwick, and Thacher, justices) were unanimously of opinion that the decree ought to be affirmed. They said that they did not undertake to determine to whom the property belonged ; that question was not before them. The General Court has interfered; not directing the Probate Court, but leaving it in the discretion of the judge, to pass or not to pass the decree prayed for by the Attorney-General; the right to the property is not intended to be and will not be concluded by affirming the decree; the question is merely whether the property shall rest on the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Leland v. KingsburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1836