Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-09-22


party is responsible, it is not necessary
to determine. 1t certainly cannot be
attributed to any negligence on the
part of the defendant or it's servants.
6. That the newly discovered evil
dence is not of such kind or strength
as to demand a new trial under the
rule well settled in this State.
Motions overruled
Cumberland SIS. Beale, Applt. VS.. Swa-
sey, EXecutriX. Rescript by kink, j.
This suit in equity is brought against
the estate of Maria A. Bent under the
provisions of r. S. Chap. SO, Sec, u,
which READS as follows: eff the Su-
preme Judicial Court, upon a bill in
equity filed by a creditor whose claim
has not been prosecuted within the
time limited by the preceding sections,
is of the opinion that justice and equi-
ty require it, and that such creditor is
not chargeable with culpable neglect in
not prosecuting his claim within the
time SO limited. 1t may give him
judgment Tor the amount of his claim
against the estate of the deceased; but
such judgent shall not affect any pay
ment or distribution made before the
fling of such BILL
The defendant both demurred and.
answered to the bill, and the case is
before the law court on appeal from a
pro forma decree sustaining the de-
murrer and Diminishing the bill.
The statute limitation within which
claims may be enforced against the es-
| tate of deceased persons is an impor-
tant one. 1t serves the worthy pur-
pose of preventing unreasonable delays
in the administration and distribution
of estates. Since the granting of relief
| under the remedial statute here invok-
| ed contravenes this purpose of the spe-
cial statute of limitations such relief is
Srantable only in those cases that are
| Enthusiastically shown to be within the
express provisions of the remedial sta
| tute strictly construed
The phrase "culpable neglect" as
used in this statute has been ju,lcially
del!red to mean ''cenSurable." blame
worthy" neSlect,-"the neglect which
exists when the loss can be fairly as
crlbed to his (plaintitfs) own careless
ness, improvidence or folly" Accord
inGly it has been held to be "culpable
| neglect" in the creditor of Jan estate to
delay the enforcement of the claim,
even at the special request of the es-
tate, and relying upon the distinct
promises and assurance of the admin
| istrator that the claim should be paid
The allegations of this bill, respect
ing the delay to bring suit against the
estate as provided by statute, consid-
| cred in the most favorable light for the
l ,NIa
that she placed her claim With an at
torney in good standing with express
| instructions to enforce it against the
estate; that she was assured by him
that it was being properly attended
to; that she relied upon him, believing
his assurances. and supposed her claim
was put in suit within the time limited
| by statute. but in some way TO the
| plaintiff unknown, or by some over
sight or inaGvertence or negligence or
the part of the attorney" no action or
| her claim was seaSonably begun al
| though, as she afterwards learned, the
eXecutriX had declined and refused t.
pay the claim.
An attorney within the scope of his
authority represents his client His
| acts of omission as we'll as commission
are to be regarded as the acts of the
party he represents. The neglect of ar
attorney, therefore, is equivalent to the
neglect of his client.
| If the plaintiffs attorney vas uuilty
of cupable neglect in not bringing suit
on her claim against the estate Their
she must be held chargeable with cul-
pablc neglect in the premises, within
| the nf thic CT tIItn
there are some special circumstances
which would make it equitable for he1
to be relieved of that neglect But nc
such special circumstances appear in
this case. There is no allegation as tc
bow 1T happened that the attorney die
| not bring the suit. The plain11fr saws
in her bill that she does not know. hI,
suggests that it was negligence on the
part of the attorney"
| She alleges that she "made repeated
visits to her said attorney" in conncc-
ton with h"r claim, but she does not
| allege that she ever inquired if the
claim had been sued, or payment re-
| fused, or that her attorney SO informed
her. 70 en,itle her to the special re-
lief afforded by this statute she must
| alege that she did something more
than merely place her claim with an
attorney for collection and that he
neglected to enforce it, for his neglect
to act in the premises, unexplained
must be regarded as her neglect
| 1t is unnecessary to consiie the 9TH
er grounds urged in support of the
| demurrer.
| Appeal dismissed. Decree of single
| Justice affirmed with additional cost 6