ventory or account was never exhibited, 70 but no complaint was made of this 
lapse, nor was dissatisfaction with the administration expressed until 1723. 71 
In that year proceedings were commenced by Lechmere in the Massachusetts 
courts for production of an inventory and account. These proceedings have 
no importance for our purposes, 72 except that they produced from Robert 
Robinson, counsel for Winthrop in the Massachusetts proceedings, the opinion 
that all the lawyers in the colonies could not prevent Lechmere et ux. from 
recovering a share of the realty in the colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut 
under the statutes governing intestacy in the respective colonies. 73 
Attempts at compromise having failed, 74 Lechmere, in July, 1724, applied 
to the Connecticut Court of Probates claiming in the right of his wife a portion 
of the Connecticut realty left by Wait Winthrop and alleging that he 
was kept out of possession by John Winthrop's failure to inventory and administer 
the same. Winthrop being thereupon summoned to appear and show 
cause, exhibited an inventory of the intestate's personal estate and insisted 
that administrators had nothing to do with realty, that he was in possession 
the Court of Probates, was conditioned upon 
making a true inventory of all said goods, chattels, 
and credits and exhibiting the same into 
the Probate Court registry on or before the 
second Tuesday in August, 1718. It was further 
conditioned upon administering the same 
according to law and making a true account 
thereof at or before the second Tuesday in 
April, 1719, and paying the balance of such 
account as the Court should appoint. Winthrop 
took out similar letters of administration in 
Suffolk County, Massachusetts, and gave a like 
administration bond to Judge Sewall of the 
Probate Court, Lechmere and one Abiel Walley 
being bound as sureties (6 Winthrop Papers, 
445)- 
70 Winthrop alleged that he had advanced 
more money to and on account of Lechmere 
than the share of the personalty of his wife 
Anne come to Winthrop's hands amounted to; 
that Lechmere et ux. had taken possession of 
most of the said personalty and had not 
required the exhibition of any inventory or 
account; that all debts had been discharged 
with one exception where the obligee declined 
receiving the principal of a bond (7 Pub. Rec. 
Col. Conn., 572). 
71 Apparently the parties were on familiar 
terms until at least May, 1723. But before 
August of that year a quarrel occurred, the 
reasons for which are obscure, and the courts 
were resorted to (6 Winthrop Papers, 404-6). 
72 Ibid., 405-6, 409, 411-13, 419-20, 436-38, 
446-47. See also 12 Jour. House Rep. Mass. 
0931), 23, 62, wherein it appears that Winthrop 
submitted to a distribution upon intestacy 
under the 1692 Massachusetts act, which as 
we have seen was practically identical with 
the Connecticut act of 1699. 
73 Robinson stated that "these laws having 
beene made for the convenience of these 
collonies at their first settlement and having 
had the royal assent, lands are made personalities 
and as such lyable to be divided 
where a person dies seizd and intestate as cattle, 
sheep, or any other personal estate whatsoever, 
and to try it here is to no purpose, for should 
it be otherwise, not only the laws but the 
whole constitution of both provinces would 
be unhinged and oversett; and to try it in 
England cannot be; first, because of the royal 
assent allready passd, both in Connecticut and 
this province, and next, because the tryal of 
tytle of land is local and must be tryd where 
the land lyes, and without a spetial verdict 
found (which is not to be obtaind) they have 
allready declared they will not try tytles in 
England" (6 Winthrop Papers, 412-13). But 
Winthrop may not have trusted the advice of 
Robinson; see ibid., 406, 427. Robinson was 
correct in his assertion that the Massachusetts 
act had been confirmed in England (see infra, 
p. 565), but in error in his allegation as to the 
Connecticut act. 
74 See ibid., 408-9. Later in March, 1724/5, a 
movement to have the matters in difference 
referred to five arbitrators was rumored {ibid., 
417; cf. ibid., 419).