Henshaw v. Blood
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of debt, brought in the name of Samuel Henshaw, Esq., judge of probate, &c., for this county, on an administration bond, against Martha Blood and Hezekiah [ * 36 ] Fiske, * administrators of the estate of Isaiah Blood, Jun., and their two sureties, for the benefit of A, B, C, &c., creditors of the intestate.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, brought in the name of Samuel Henshaw, Esq., judge of probate, &c., for this county, on an administration bond, against Martha Blood and Hezekiah [ * 36 ] Fiske, * administrators of the estate of Isaiah Blood, Jun., and their two sureties, for the benefit of A, B, C, &c., creditors of the intestate. The defendants prayed oyer of the condition, which was in the fu/m prescribed by the statute, 'passed March 9th, 1784, (stat. 1783, c. 36, $ 8,) and pleaded in bar that the administrators from the time of making the writing obligatory aforesaid had well and faithfully…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
“ This is an action prima impressionis. The plaintiffs have mistaken their remedy; their claim was ascertained by the commissioners ; they had no need, to bring a suit; if new effects are discovered, they can have a new dividend. If an administrator refuses to inventory estate after notice, complaint should be lodged in the probate office, and if he still neglect, the remedy must be on his administration bond. If his intestate had made a [ * 43 ] fraudulent conveyance, the administrator, upon being * indemnified, might lend his name to the creditor, and bring a *33iuit against the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Manches & Co. v. GilbeyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
- Butler v. RickerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1830
- Gilbert v. DuncanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1876
- Stearns v. StearnsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1822