Browsing: Diary of John Adams, Volume 1

In the Beginning of May 58 Mr. Lambard, the Plantiff, gave a Lease of a House and Barn and Land in Germantown mentioned in the Writ to the Defendant Mr. Tirrell, and this Lease you will have with you. You will find by it, that Tirrill was to give [illegible initial] &c. the same Rent, that is sued for, in the present Action. In May 1759, i.e. at the End of the Year, Mr. Lambard went into the service, without making any new Contract, and Mr. Tirrell and his family continued in the House from that time to this. The Plantiff has frequently requested his Rent, but has been always refused, and at last he was obliged to bring his Action. As I said before there was no express Contract between the Parties, for the Year 1759, but as there was an express Contract for 58, and as the Defendant continued with his family, and as the Plantiff permitted him to continue in the House, the natural and legal Presumption is, that each Party was satisfyd with the old Terms, and intended the old Terms should continue. For had the Landlord been dissatisfyd with the Terms, it would have been his Business to have said, you must come upon a new Agreement or else leave the House, and had the Tenant been dissatisfyd he should {p. 165} have said I must have the Place for less Rent or else I must leave. But as each Party was silent, each Party implicitly consented that the old Conditions should remain; especially as the Terms were very reasonable. £70 old Tenor, a Year is a moderate Rent for that Place. There is a very convenient handsome new House, there is a good Barn, and several good Lotts of Land. Besides the House has had Licence for a Tavern for these 7 Years, and Mr. Tirrell has all along kept a Tavern there and does to this day. Now the single Priviledge of keeping a Tavern upon that Place is worth as much annually as this Rent. For Germantown, you all know is a Place of considerable Resort. Hardly any Gentlemen of Curiosity from any of the four Governments come to this Town, without taking a Ride to Germantown to see the Manufactures there, that of Glass and that of Stockings. Great Numbers of People go out from this Town upon Parties of Pleasure to Germantown, and there is a considerable Number of Inhabitants upon the Place and all these must be entertained and supplied, so that considering the House, Barn, Land, and these Priviledges the Rent is quite moderate, and there can be no Reason why each Party should not be confined, to those Terms, which the Defendants silence and Continuance in the House, raise a violent Presumption that he consented to, and I dont doubt, you’l give us the sum sued for accordingly.

Dana says the Administrator ought not to regard the Disgrace or Trouble or Expence of a Commission of Insolvency, but if it is in the least degree suspicious, that the Estate will not prove sufficient, he must represent it so, at his first Appointment i.e. every Day, that he takes to enquire into the Value of the Estate, and the Number of Debts, is at the Risque of the Creditors, and if any one Creditor brings his Action he must maintain it, at the Expence of the others. For says he, as no Time is limitted an Administrator may wait a whole Year, before he represents the Estate insolvent, and live upon the Estate all that time, to the Injury of the Creditors. Nay he may neglect it two Years, or 10 Years, till he has wasted, spent, or alienated the whole Estate.

I say, it is reasonable that a Time should be allowed the Administrator to enquire, to make a Computation of the Effects, and to enquire into the No. and Quantity of the Debts, that he may be able to judge, whether the Estate is insolvent or not. For a Commission of Insolvency {p. 166} is an Evil, always to be avoided, if Possible. It is always considered as a Disgrace to a family. It is always a great Expence to the Estate. It always provokes the Curses of the Creditors, and puts them to the Trouble in attending the Commissioners to prove their Debts. And it is not only reasonable, that a Time of Enquiry should be allowed, but it is Law. And the Executor or Administrator appointed to any Insolvent Estate, before Payment to any be made, except as aforesaid, shall represent the Condition and Circumstances thereof unto the Judge of Probate. Here is plainly a time allowed him, and there is no Limitation of that time. It is only said the Representation must be made before any Payment is made. And here is an Exception, which clearly gives the Administrator, some time; the Exception is of Debts due to the Crown, of sickness and funeral Charges. These the Administrator, after his Appointment may pay, before he is obliged to represent it insolvent, and he could not pay these any more than any other Debts unless some time was allowed him.

Mr. Danas Objections are in my humble opinion of little Weight. He says, that if the Administrator is not obliged to represent immediately, he may delay it, till she and her family have consumed, or by fraud conveyed away the Estate. But your Honours know that Apprisers are appointed, always directly after the Administrator is appointed, who are to make an Inventory and then the Administrator charges herself with all the Articles in the Inventory, and gives Bonds to be accountable for them at the apprized Value, at the Years End. So that if the Estate is wasted the Administrators Bond may be put in suit. Besides, admitting here is a Defect in the Law, in this Respect, Admitting a new Law is expedient, to limit the Time of [representation], such a Law has no Existence, nor can Mr. Dana avail himself of a Law that has no Being, however expedient it may be, especially when the Representation is made within a reasonable Time, as this was. The Representation was made in 9 months, which was a short space of Time considering the Circumstances of this affair. Brackett was struck out of Life suddenly, left a very distressed family, and a very perplexed and embarrassed Estate, so that it was impossible for the Widow to recover from her surprize, and make any Inquiry so as to satisfy herself whether the Estate was sufficient or not, sooner than she did. And I presume the Reason why the Law has not confined the Administrator to such Estates to narrow limits, is, because Persons, that die so much in Debt, commonly leave Widows and Children behind them, who have been used to decent and reputable living, and will therefore, if some reasonable time is not allowed them to keep together, {p. 167} recover their surprize and look about them, will be driven to absolute Despair. And to this Purpose and that the Estate may not be burdened with Costs, the Law has provided, that no Proscess shall be allowed, while any such Estate is depending as aforesaid, which Words extend as well to the Time, the Estate is depending under the Examination and Enquiry of the Administrator as to that between the Representation of Insolvency and the settling of the Average. And it is quite reasonable that this Action in Particular, should be barred, because it was entered, out of the meer Humour and Obstinacy of the Plantiff. Tho it was commenced before the Representation it was entered afterwards, whereas if he had been a reasonable Man, instead of entering and driving this Action, as he has done, he should have dropd it without Entry.