Case ID: mass_24/html/0256-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Andrews, Administratrix, Appellant, &c. versus Richard D. Tucker et al.
    
    
      Nov. 7th.
    
    If the creditors of an intestate estate represented insolvent, request the administrator to inventory certain real estate alleged to have been fraudulently conveyed by the intestate, accompanying the request with an offer of indemnity, the refusal of the administrator to inventory the same will be a sufficient cause for removing him from the trust, without proof that the conveyance was fraudulent.
    This was an appeal from a decree of the judge of probate removing the appellant from the office of administratrix of the estate of her husband, Joseph Andrews, deceased, intestate. The estate had been represented insolvent. The decree was passed upon the petition of creditors of the intestate, praying for the removal of the administratrix on account of her refusing to inventory certain parcels oi real estate, to the end that the same might be sold for the payment of debts. The creditors represented that this real estate had been fraudulently conveyed by the intestate for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, and that they had given notice thereof to the administratrix and had requested her to cause the same to be inventoried as the real estate of the intestate; and they offered, in their petition, to indemnify her for so doing.
    The administratrix appealed from the decree, “ because the real estate was conveyed by said Joseph Andrews in his lifetime to John H. Andrews bond fide and for a valuable consideration, and not for the purpose of delaying and defrauding the creditors of said Joseph.”
    Shillaber, for the appellant,
    objected that the decree was passed simply on the representation of the creditors, with out any evidence that the land in question had been fraudu lently conveyed. The remedy of the creditors is upon the administration bond. He cited Johnson v. Libby, 15 Mass. R. 140 ; Wildridge v. Patterson, ibid. 148 ; Mansfield v. Patterson, ibid. 491.
    
      Nov. 8th.
    
    
      B. Merrill, contra,
    
    relied on Wildridge v. Patterson. He referred also to Newcomb v. Wing, 3 Pick. 168.
   Per Curiam.

It was the duty of the administratrix to let the creditors have an opportunity to try the question of fraudulent conveyance. This could not be done before the judge of probate, but the trial must be before a jury. As the creditors offered to indemnify the administratrix, she ought not to have stood in their way.

Judgment affirmed with costs. 
      
       See Revised Stat. c. 71, § 11. The administrator is bound to inventory land which to his knowledge has been fraudulently conveyed by the intestate. Minor v. Mead, 3 Connect. R. 289. But if the administrator has no knowledge that the conveyance was fraudulent, he cannot be made liable for not inventorying the property. Booth v. Patrick, 8 Connect R. 106. See Potter v. Titcomb, 1 Fairfield, 65.