creditor claim in Massachusetts

1979L. c. 197, § 10, as appearing in St. 1954, c. 552, § 2, which provides: "If the supreme judicial court, *27 upon a bill in equity filed by a creditor whose claim has not been prosecuted within the time limited by section nine, deems that justice and equity require it and that such creditor is not chargeable with culpable neglect in not prosecuting his claim within the time so limited, it may give him judgment for the amount of his claim against the estate of the deceased person, provided forthwith upon the filing of the bill a notice such as provided in section nine has been filed in the prope

1967Helms v. Holmes, 129 F.2nd, 271-272, Huntington v. Saunders, 166 Mass. 92 .

1942Ed.) c. 197, § 9, as amended by St. 1933, c. 221, § 4, limiting the time within which creditors of an estate may bring actions to enforce their claims, was to expedite the settlement of estates, Stebbins v. Scott, 172 Mass. 356 ; Henshaw v. Brown, 299 Mass. 136 ; Spaulding v. McConnell, 307 Mass. 144 ; and a creditor whose claim is barred by this statute is not entitled to relief under G.

1942Ed.) c. 197, § 9, as amended by St. 1933, c. 221, § 4, limiting the time within which creditors of an estate may bring actions to enforce their claims, was to expedite the settlement of estates, Stebbins v. Scott, 172 Mass. 356 ; Henshaw v. Brown, 299 Mass. 136 ; Spaulding v. McConnell, 307 Mass. 144 ; and a creditor whose claim is barred by this statute is not entitled to relief under G.

1942The plaintiff was a creditor within said §§ 9 and 10, Segal v. Switzer, 305 Mass. 27, 29 , and the mere fact that she had brought an action against the decedent in his lifetime does not prevent her from proceeding under said § 10.

1942Ed.) c. 197, § 9, as amended by St. 1933, c. 221, § 4, limiting the time within which creditors of an estate may bring actions to enforce their claims, was to expedite the settlement of estates, Stebbins v. Scott, 172 Mass. 356 ; Henshaw v. Brown, 299 Mass. 136 ; Spaulding v. McConnell, 307 Mass. 144 ; and a creditor whose claim is barred by this statute is not entitled to relief under G.

1939In the later case at page 422 citing Phillips v. Phillips, 3 Hare 281, 300, Vice Chancellor Wigram is quoted as stating * * * “If the debtor promises to pay the old debt when he is able, or by installments, or in two years or out of a particular fund, the creditor can claim nothing more than the promise given.” The promise given in the instant case is to pay “as soon as he was able.” In Gillingham v. Brown, supra, the defendant agreed to pay a debt which was barred by the Statute of Limitations and made an oral promise to pay in monthly installments of ten dollars.

1912Ewing v. King, 169 Mass. 97 .

1910They are entitled to share in a common fund, in proportion to the amounts due to them respectively, at the decease of the debtor; and they are delayed, in receiving their dues, by means for which one is no more responsible than the other, and which neither could remove by any diligence.” The rule has been followed in Thomas v. Western Car Co. 149 U. S. 95 ; Bowman v. Wilson, 12 Fed.

1901Boynton v. Moulton, 159 Mass. 248 .

1901If the debtor promises to pay the old debt when he is able, or by instalments, or in two years, or out of a particular fund, the creditor can claim nothing more than the promise gives him.” Custy v. Donlan, 159 Mass. 245 .

1867In Nelson v. Boynton, 3 Met. 396 , it was held that a promise to pay the debt of another, (which had been secured by suit and attachment of his property, in which the new promisor had no interest,) in consideration of the creditor’s discontinuing the suit, without however giving up or discharging that debt, was within the statute; and the chief justice distinguished the ease from those in which the creditor had a claim or lien upon property, which was discharged at the request and for the benefit of the party promising; and said, “ The rule to be derived from the decisions seems to be this; th

1842In Heath v. Gay, 10 Mass. 371 , it was held, that in a suit against a surety on a probate bond, in favor of a creditor whose claim had been allowed against an insolvent estate, interest should be allowed upon the amount of his dividend, from the demand of payment.