Case ID: mass_14/html/0254-01.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 Swan, Administratrix, &c., versus Oliver Wilkinson.
    -f a feme sole administratrix marry pending an action commenced by her, the suit abates.
    At the last May term of this Court at Greenfield, in the county of Franklin, this action came up by appeal from the Circuit Court of Common Pleas, where there had been a trial upon the merits, and a verdict. At that term the defendant pleaded the marriage of the plaintiff since the appeal in abatement of the suit. The plaintiff demurred to the plea, and the defendant joined in the demurrer.
    
      Alvord, for the plaintiff.
    The administration was not extinguished by the marriage. Administration may be originally granted to a feme covert, who is next of kin to the intestate.  In the case of Quick <$f Ux. vs. Staines, 
       the executrix had married, and afterwards brought an action as executrix, in which her husband joined, and this point was not thought of, though the cause was sharply argued. By our statute of 1783, c. 24, <§, 19, it is provided that, when a feme sole shall, jointly with one or more persons, be appointed executrix or administratrix, and after such appointment shall, during the life of the co-executor or co-administrator, marry, such marriage shall operate as an extinguishment or determination of such woman’s power and authority. The inference from this provision is irresistible that the marriage of a feme sole executrix, when no other is united in the trust with her, does not determine the trust.
    Though an action commenced by a feme sole in her own right abates by her marriage, it is not so when the action is an outer droit, as executrix or administratrix. Chattels which the wife has as executrix or administratrix * are not vested in the husband by the marriage.  Of course the right of action in such capacity remains to her.
    
      Newcomb, for the defendant,
    contended thpt the plaintiff, not being liable to an action as administratrix, could not be entitled to sue; and no process lying to compel the husband to become a party, the suit must abate. By the statute of 1808, c. .98, a feme sole guardian marrying, the trust is thereby extinguished. The same reason existing in the case of an executrix or administratrix,
    
      the sense of the legislature on the present question may be plainly inferred.
    
      
      
        Com. Dig., title Administration, D; also Administrator, B, 6 • also Baron and Feme, P, 3.
    
    
      
       1 B. P. 292. — See, also, 2 W. Black. Rep. 801.
    
    
      
      3) Com. Dig., Baron and Feme, E, 3. — Co. Lit. 351.
    
   Per Curiam.

We know no distinction, as to the question in this case, between a feme sole commencing an action in her own right, or as executrix or administratrix. Her marriage pending the suit abates it in either case. The plaintiff’s rights remain to her, but her husband must join her in an action in which she would vindicate those rights.

JDefendant’s plea good, 
      
      
         [New vs. Muxcy, 17 Mass. Rep. 341. — Ed.]