Osgood v. Heirs of Breed
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The - said Osgood, being joint administrator with Ebenezer Breed, of the goods and estate of Mary White, deceased, made a petition to the judge of probate for this county, setting forth that the said Mary died intestate, leaving only two heirs at law, viz., Hannah Osgood, late wife of the petitioner, and Ebenezer Breed, father of his co-administrator; that by the death of his said wife, the petitioner, in her right, was by law entitled to a moiety of the personal estate of…
Read the full summary
The - said Osgood, being joint administrator with Ebenezer Breed, of the goods and estate of Mary White, deceased, made a petition to the judge of probate for this county, setting forth that the said Mary died intestate, leaving only two heirs at law, viz., Hannah Osgood, late wife of the petitioner, and Ebenezer Breed, father of his co-administrator; that by the death of his said wife, the petitioner, in her right, was by law entitled to a moiety of the personal estate of the said Mary, and the representatives of the said Ebenezer deceased were entitled to the other moiety thereof; that it…
1Opinion of the Court
Parker, C. J.,
pronounced the opinion of the Court.
The decree of the judge of probate is affirmed, for the following reasons:— [ * 358 ] * As to the claim of interest on the balance of the advancements made to the son and daughter of the intestate, it is not supported by any authorities, nor by the principles of the law on the subject of advancements.
All the authorities cited in support of the claim of interest relate only to marriage portions, which are considered as vesting at the *289marriage, and stand upon a different footing from advancements.
The true notion of an advancement is a giving, by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Manning v. ThrustonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
- Dillman v. CoxIndiana Supreme Court · 1864
- Fennell v. HenrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1881