Case ID: ri_2/html/0117-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Greene, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nelson Andrews v. Nathan Carr.
    It is the duty of an administrator to contest doubtful claims against the estate of the deceased, and he is not liable to be removed for the reasonable delay in the administration caitsed by the discharge of this duty.
    Held that a delay of five months to petition for a new trial on a judgment, rendered against the estate of the deceased, was not an unreasonable delay.
    An appeal from the Court of Probate of West Greenwich, removing the appellant from the office of administrator on the estate of Christopher Mattison, and appointing Nathan Carr in his place.
    Bowen, in support of the decree, said that the ground for the removal of the appellant was, that he had neglected the duties of his office and was wasting the assets. Administration upon the estate was first granted in November, 1847, when Mary Mattison was appointed adminis-tratrix and continued as such until October, 1849, when the appellant was appointed and continued until July 26, 1861, when the decree was rendered, from which this appeal was taken. The estate had been in the course of administration for five years. At the March term of the Court, 1849, the claims of Nathan Carr and others were submitted under a rule of Court to the award of referees, who reported in March, 1850. This report was excepted to and confirmed in March, 1851. It was then the duty of the administrator to have paid off the claims against the estate, or have petitioned for a new trial, but this he did not do, and was therefore removed July 26, 1851, and did not file a motion for a new trial on the award of the referees, until the August Term following. He also put in evidence to show that the appellant was acting as agent of the heirs of the estate, and had said that the heirs had declared they would rather expend the whole property in litigation than pay a certain claim against the estate ; and that the assets were diminishing in value in his hands.
    The appellant put in evidence to show that the assets of Christopher Mattison were appraised at nearly $ 12,000 shortly after his decease, and his debts at about <$4,000.
   Greene, C. J.

Potter and Bradley for appellant.

Ames, Cozzens, and Bowen for Carr.

Decree reversed.