Richards v. Dutch
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The declaration in this case, which was in assumpsit, contained two counts. The first was on a promise of the defendants to account, as bailiffs and receivers of James Murray, late of Calcutta, deceased, (whose administrator, with the will of the deceased annexed, the plaintiff is,) for certain goods shipped to the defendants from Calcutta by the said deceased.' The second count was indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received.
Read the full summary
The declaration in this case, which was in assumpsit, contained two counts. The first was on a promise of the defendants to account, as bailiffs and receivers of James Murray, late of Calcutta, deceased, (whose administrator, with the will of the deceased annexed, the plaintiff is,) for certain goods shipped to the defendants from Calcutta by the said deceased.' The second count was indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received. The cause was tried upon a review before Parker, J., at the November term, 1809, upon the general issue, and also on an issue joined by the parties on a fact…
1Opinion of the Court
The action stood continued for advisement until this term ; and now the Court expressed their opinion that the testimony given at the trial, of the oral declarations of the testator, ought not to have been admitted; it went to set up a will by parole, instead of the written will of the testator himself.
In case of a copy of a will filed and administration granted in this state under the statute of 1785, c. 12, the administrator may be held to pay debts due to creditors here, if any such are claimed of him; but legatees, who claim only from the bounty of *429the testator, mus* resort to the country…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- M'Donald v. MortonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1805
3Cited by2 opinions
- Connecticut Junior Republic v. Sharon HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Connecticut Junior Republic v. Sharon HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982