Coffin v. Jones
Coffin v. Jones
Opinion of the Court
It is very clear that this action cannot be maintained for the purposes for which it purports to be instituted ; for by the indorsement its character and object are ascertained; it is for the use and benefit of the heirs of the intestate ; but by the express provision of the statute, they can have no such action without producing a decree of distribution, and proving a demand upon the administrator before the action is brought.
This seems to be admitted, but it is contended that the action may be pursued by the judge of probate to recover the amount of personal estate which came to the hands of the administrator, and that then the heirs may have scire facias
It is true in that case it is said, that when a suit is pending in the name of the judge of probate, his consent to the suit will be presumed until the contrary is shown by pleading,
The plaintiff therefore cannot have judgment as he has prayed.
See Paine v. Moffit, 11 Pick. 500.
Where a suit is brought upon a probate bond, for the benefit of a legatee, without authority from the judge of probate, his subsequent approval of the suit will be sufficient to sustain it. White v. Stanwood, 4 Pick. 380.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Isaac Coffin, Judge of Probate &c. versus Daniel Jones
- Status
- Published