Ames v. Armstrong
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract in the name of the judge of probate for the county of Suffolk, on behalf of the devisees and legatees under the will of Daniel Pitman, against David Armstrong and John Turner, as executors of said will, on the bond, dated May 29, 1865, given by them to the plaintiff, by which they bound themselves jointly and severally, and which was conditioned that they should, “ First, make and return to the prohate court for said county of Suffolk, within three months from their…
Read the full summary
Contract in the name of the judge of probate for the county of Suffolk, on behalf of the devisees and legatees under the will of Daniel Pitman, against David Armstrong and John Turner, as executors of said will, on the bond, dated May 29, 1865, given by them to the plaintiff, by which they bound themselves jointly and severally, and which was conditioned that they should, “ First, make and return to the prohate court for said county of Suffolk, within three months from their appointment, a true inventory of all the real estate and all the goods, chattels, rights and credits of said testator…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
Coexecutors, even though numerous, are regarded
in law as but one person. The acts of one, within the scope of his authority, in the administration of the estate, are the acts of all, with this qualification, that at common law each was responsible only for such assets as came to his own hands. Under ordinary circumstances, one of two or more executors was not to be held accountable for waste or other misconduct on the part of an associate. The misplaced confidence of the testator in the integrity or capacity of one of the number was not allowed to operate to the prejudice of another. But even…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sparhawk v. Administrator of Ozias BuellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
- Monell v. MonellNew York Court of Chancery · 1821
- Boyd v. BoydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Edmonds v. CrenshawSupreme Court of the United States · 1840
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hayes v. HallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Blake v. PegramMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Nanz v. . OakleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- McKim v. AulbachMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Forbes v. KeyesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.