Case Name: Joshua Thomas, Esquire, Judge of Probate, versus Micah White
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1815-07
Citations: 11 Tyng 366
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joshua Thomas, Esquire, Judge of Probate, versus Micah White.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 320–323

Head Matter:
Joshua Thomas, Esquire, Judge of Probate, versus Micah White.
A bond given to the Judge of Probate, by one to whom the whole of the real estate of his ancestor had been assigned, conditioned to pay to the other heirs their respective proportions of such estate, is extra-official, and not such a probate bond as authorizes an original suit upon it in this Court.
Upon the abatement of a suit so brought, the Court awarded costs for the defendant.
Debt on a bond for $ 5000, sealed by the defendant and others as his sureties, payable to the plaintiff or his successors in the office of Judge of Probate for the county of Plymouth, dated November 1st, 1797.
* On oyer had of the bond and its condition, this latter [*368] was such, that the obligation was to be void, if the said Micah White should “ pay or cause to be paid to the heirs of Micah White, late of Bridgewater, in said county, yeoman, deceased, their respective shares of and in the real estate of the said deceased, (assigned to, and settled upon, the said Micah, first-named,) agreeably to a decree of the said Judge of Probate of equal date with these presents,” &c.
After oyer had, the defendant pleaded that the Court here ought not further to take cognizance of or sustain the action, because the cause of said action, if any, is originally within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Common Pleas, for the southern circuit, holden, or to be holden, at Plymouth, and not within the original jurisdiction of this Court.
Upon this plea, issue was joined to the Court, and the cause was shortly argued by Eddy, for the plaintiff, and by Winslow, for the defendant ;
after which, the opinion of the Court was delivered by

Opinion:
Parker, C. J.
The question presented in this case is, whether the Court can entertain original jurisdiction of an action upon the bond, which is put upon the record upon oyer prayed.
The statute which regulates the proceedings on probate bonds in the courts of common law, &c., in the third section provides, that " all suits thereafter brought in the name of any probate judge, upon a probate bond of any kind, shall be originally commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court, held within or for the county unto which the said probate judges respectively belong."
But it is objected on the part of the defendant, that this is not a probate bond, although given to the judge of probate ; because it is not one of the bonds which the judge of probate is authorized or required to take virlute officii. And we are all clear that the objection is fatal to the action ; for this bond is not technically a probate bond ; it not being necessary, if at all proper, that it should have been given to the judge of probate.
* By the statute of 1783, c. 36, which directs the de- [ * 369 ] scent of intestate estates, &c., the judge of probate is empowered to assign the whole of the real estate of the intestate to the eldest son, or other sons successively, when a division will be a prejudice to the whole ; the person, to whom the assignment is made, paying, or giving security to pay, in such time as the judge shall ap point, such sums to the other heirs as shall be ascertained to be their just proportions. The payment, if made, is to be made to the heirs ; and the security, if given, ought to be given to them ; there being no control given to the judge of probate over the sums to be paid or secured.
A probate bond, within the meaning of the statute, is a bond which must, by law, be given to the judge of probate ; such as bonds given by executors or administrators, and some others, which are provided for by several statutes. In all which cases the judge of probate is made by law the trustee of those to whose use the bond is given. The bonds required to be given by executors and administrators, to qualify them to execute their trusts, those to be given previously to the sale of the real estates of persons deceased in certain cases, or the estates of minors or-persons non compos, are all expressly required to be given to the judge of probate. These are, therefore, all, properly speaking, probate bonds ; and the actions upon them must be originally commenced in this Court.
But the bond, which is the subject of this suit, is extra-official. It is not required to be given to the judge of probate. The security was not necessarily a bond ; for a note of hand, or any other written engagement directed to the judge of probate, would have been effectual. R is not, therefore, a probate bond, and so cannot be sued originally here. For this Court has no original jurisdiction of civil actions between party and party, unless it is given by statute. No objection is made to the validity of the bond. It is undoubtedly good at common law; for the obligor has, by his deed, [* 370] consented to make the obligee trustee for the persons * interested in the sum secured. The plea is good and sufficient.
After the above determination, the defendant's counsel moved for costs to be allowed him ; to which the counsel for the plaintiff objected, because, as he alleged, if the Court had no jurisdiction of the action, they could enter no judgment for costs, and he cited the case of Williams vs. Blunt, in support of the objection.
Sed Curiam.
In the case referred to, the Court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter by appeal, and dismissed the appeal, because they could not sustain it, or give any judgment thereon. But in this case the Court has jurisdiction of the subject, namely, a pro bate bond ; and it is only by the plea of the defendant, on which there must be an issue and judgment, that the want of jurisdiction of this particular suit can be ascertained.
Costs for the defendant.
Stat 1786, c. 55.
[† By the Rev. Stat. c. 103. § 57, it is provided, that " such partition shall not be established by the Court".(of Probate), " until all the sums so awarded shall be paid to the parties entitled thereto, or secured to their satisfaction." — Ed.]
2 Mass. Rep. 207.
Guild vs. Richardson, Adm'r., 6 Pick. 364. — Sed vide Dean vs. Dean, 2 Pick. 25 — Clarke vs. Rockwell, 15 Mass. Rep. 221.