Brigden v. Cheever
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The declaration was in assumpsit, and contained two counts. 1. The first was for 3000 dollars, laid out and expended by the plaintiff for the defendant’s use. 2. The second was a special count, setting forth a devise to the plaintiff of certain real estate in Charlestown, and another devise to the defendant of certain estate in Princeton, in and by the last will of Moses Gill, Esq., deceased ; and that the land devised to the plaintiff was taken to satisfy a judgment…
Read the full summary
The declaration was in assumpsit, and contained two counts. 1. The first was for 3000 dollars, laid out and expended by the plaintiff for the defendant’s use. 2. The second was a special count, setting forth a devise to the plaintiff of certain real estate in Charlestown, and another devise to the defendant of certain estate in Princeton, in and by the last will of Moses Gill, Esq., deceased ; and that the land devised to the plaintiff was taken to satisfy a judgment recovered by Ward Nicholas Boylston against the executor of the said last will; and then claiming contribution according to the…
1Opinion of the CourtJackson, J.
The first objection suggested by the defendant is that a court of common law is not competent alone to carry into effect the provisions of the statute relied on ; and that there ought o have been a previous adjustment or apportionment made in the ^róbate Court, as a court of chancery, of the amount due from each respective legatee, devisee, or heir.
It is apparent that this controversy might have been better set tied in a court of chancery jurisdiction, where all the parties con cerned could have been brought at once into court, and their respective interests and liabilities adjusted, and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Griffin v. KelleherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- People v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1845
- Janvrin v. CurtisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- Bowen v. Mead & MeadMichigan Supreme Court · 1850