Case Name: Theodore Hammett and wife vs. Jeremiah Starkweather, Administrator
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1880-01
Citations: 47 Conn. 439
Docket Number: 
Parties: Theodore Hammett and wife vs. Jeremiah Starkweather, Administrator.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 439–442

Head Matter:
Theodore Hammett and wife vs. Jeremiah Starkweather, Administrator.
A creditor of tlie estate of a deceased person in settlement as a solvent estate, informed the administrator, within the time limited for presenting claims, that she had a claim for money lent the deceased at sundiy times, stating the particulars, and he requested her to make up her account in figures with interest, and give it to him. She afterwards, and within the time limited, presented to him a sheet of paper on which were written the different sums lent, with a computation of the interest on each, but with nothing else to indicate its character or object. The administrator received it as being what he had requested, but afterwards disallowed the claim. Held that the claim had been sufficiently presented to the administrator..
Assumpsit for money lent to the defendant’s intestate; brought to the Superior Court in Windham County, and tried to the court on the general issue, with notice, before Hovey, J. The matters set up in the notice were the statute of limitations, and the neglect to present the claim to the defendant as administrator before the bringing of the suit.
On the trial it was admitted that the defendant was administrator of the estate of Erastus Hammett, late of Plainfield, in Windham County, deceased; that the estate was in the course of settlement in the court of probate for the district of Plainfield as a solvent intestate estate; and that the court, on the 16th of August, 1876, made an order limiting sis months as the time within which claims against the estate should be presented to the administrator.
The plaintiffs introduced the defendant as a witness, who, among other things, testified that Mrs. Hammett informed him in December, 1876, that she had a claim against the estate—that she lent to the deceased $30 twenty-five years before, $150 twenty-three years before, and $225 fifteen years before, and that this money had never been repaid to her; that the defendant then asked her if she had a note or anything to show for it, and she replied that she had not, and that he, then supposing that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, told her that he was sorry to say that it was beyond his jurisdiction; that afterwards on the same day he told her to make up her account in figures with interest and present it to him, and he would see if Erastus (a son) and the old lady (the widow of the deceased,) would agree to allow her something; that a short time afterwards, in the early part of January, 1877, and within the time limited for the exhibition of claims against the estate, she made out her account in figures and writing as the defendant had directed, and handed it to him. The account thus made was as follows:—
“$4.291871 amount of $1 at 6 per cent. 80 ' -
$128.756130 amount of $30 for 25 years.
$3.819750 amount of $1 for 23 years. 150
190.987500
381.9750
$572.962500 amount of $150 for 23 years. $2.396558 amount of $1 for 15 years. 225
11.982790
47.93116
479.3116
539.225550 amount of $225 for 15 years.
572.962500 ■
128.756130
$1240.944180 amount of $225 for 15 years, $150 for 23 years, and $30 for 25 years.”
The defendant also testified that he, on the 7th day of March, 1877, disallowed the claim, and gave notice thereof to Mrs. Hammett on the same day.
To the above evidence the counsel for the defendant objected, upon the ground that it did not prove or tend to prove a lawful exhibition of the claim against the estate; but the court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence.
Upon, the whole evidence produced at the trial it was found by the court that, in the year 1852, Mrs. Hammett lent to the said Erastus Hammett (the deceased) the sum of $80; in 1854 the sum of $70; in 1855 $80; and in 1862 $225; all of which was money earned by her before her marriage, or which came to her from her deceased relatives; that the said Erastus never paid the same or any part thereof to her or to any other person in her behalf; but that at various times within six years immediately preceding his death, he recognized his indebtedness to her on account of the loans and promised to pay the same to her.
The court also found that in the month of December, 1876, and within the time limited by the court of probate for the presentation of claims against the estate to the administrator, Mrs. Hammett orally presented her claim against the estate to the defendant, and stated to him all the items and particulars of it so that he fully understood the same; but she did not then state to him that the deceased had promised to pay the same within six years; that afterwards in the early part of January, 1877, and within the time limited for the presentation of claims, she, at the request and "by direction of the defendant, made out her claim in writing in the manner above stated and presented it to the defendant, who accepted the same as in the form he required and as a good and valid presentation of the claim; and he fully understood from it that it was a claim of $1,240.94 for money lent by her to the said deceased in his lifetime, in the sums and at the times stated, with the interest thereon. But afterwards the defendant, believing the claim to be barred by the statute of limitations, disallowed the same, and he disallowed it for no other cause.
Upon these facts the defendant’s counsel requested the court to rule that no lawful presentation of the claim had been made by Mrs. Hammett to the defendant as administrator. But the court ruled that the presentation was sufficient, and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs for the sum of $895.30 damages and costs of suit. The defendant moved for a new trial for error in the rulings of the court.
T. F. Graves, in support of the motion.
The only question in the case is, was the “claim” of Mrs. Hammett “exhibited” to the administrator as required by law. By the statute claims are barred unless “exhibited” within the time limited by the court of probate. Gen. Statutes, p. 888, sec. 5. To exhibit a claim is to “present it for inspection.” Webster’s Diet. An “exhibit” is a paper or writing produced on motion or otherwise. Bouvier Law Diet. The parol statement of the claim was not a legal exhibit. And the mass of figures in the case is not an intelligent statement of anything, and was not given or taken as an exhibit, but for entirely another purpose. The administrator had no power to waive the requirements of the law in the case ■ nor is his reason for disallowance, known only to himself, of any consequence.
J. Halsey and J. J. Penrose, contra,
cited Mills v. Wildman, 18 Conn., 124; Am. Board of Comrs. for Foreign Missions’ Appeal from Probate, 27 id., 344; Pike v. Thorp, 44 id., 450; Mead’s Appeal from, Probate, 46 id., 417.

Opinion:
Pakdee, J.
Although the statement of the plaintiffs' claim in this case was not made in the form which would have been given to it by a skilled accountant, it yet embodies a claim for money loaned for a term of years, with interest, with sufficient distinctness and precision to entitle it to recognition. If it lacks anything in these respects the accompanying oral explanation supplied the deficiency; if there is any mystery the key to it was placed in the hands of the administrator. To him the written presentation became clear and precise to his expressed satisfaction. He, representing heirs and creditors, was made to comprehend the extent of the plaintiffs' demand upon the estate, and the time and character of each of the several transactions out of which it grew. He was put in possession of all information requisite for the defence of the estate against it if it was without foundation. This matter of substance secured, the law is satisfied.
A new trial is not advised. -
In this opinion the other judges concurred.