Case Name: Rose v. Clark et ux., Administrators of Spicer, her former Husband
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1790-09
Citations: 1 Root 229
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rose v. Clark et ux., Administrators of Spicer, her former Husband.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 229–229

Head Matter:
Rose v. Clark et ux., Administrators of Spicer, her former Husband.
The court will decree an offset against an administrator of an insolvent estate, although the claim has not been exhibited and allowed by the commissioners, on the ground of fraud.
Petition in chancery showing; that he bought a piece of land of said Spicer, in his lifetime, for £44, and gave him his note for it; at the same time it was agreed between said Spicer and him, that he should set up a small frame, for which he was to have £10, to be indorsed on said note; that the petitioner set up said building, which went into the estate of said Spicer; that said Spicer died before any indorsement was made of it upon his note; that his widow administered upon his estate, which was represented and found to be much insolvent; that she prevented his exhibiting his claim to the commissioners, by telling him she would indorse it; until their commission expired: and after her intermarriage with said Clark, they refused to indorse it, and recovered the whole note and interest, by judgment of the Superior Court.

Opinion:
Upon a hearing on the merits, the court found the facts as laid in the petition, and decreed that said Clark, and wife pay to the petitioner, said £10, and the interest from the time cf his performing said work, upon the ground of the original agreement, and the fraud in the administrators, on refusing to discount it.