Drew v. McDaniel
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
The first action is an appeal from the decision of the commissioner on the estate of Eliza H. Drew, disallowing a note for $2,000, dated May 25, 1875, signed by the defendant’s intestate and payable to the plaintiff; and the second is a writ of entry to-foreclose a mortgage given to secure the note. It was claimed in defence that the note was for a larger sum than was due, and that it was void by reason of the mental weakness and want of capacity of the deceased.
Read the full summary
The first action is an appeal from the decision of the commissioner on the estate of Eliza H. Drew, disallowing a note for $2,000, dated May 25, 1875, signed by the defendant’s intestate and payable to the plaintiff; and the second is a writ of entry to-foreclose a mortgage given to secure the note. It was claimed in defence that the note was for a larger sum than was due, and that it was void by reason of the mental weakness and want of capacity of the deceased. Facts found by a referee. These actions, with two others in favor of Lois A. Beck against the same defendant, were heard and tried…
1Opinion of the CourtStanley, J.
Upon the facts found by the referee, it was a proper exercise of discretion to allow the plaintiff to testify. The administrator did not appear, nor make any defence. The real defendants were the plaintiff’s brothers, but they did not represent the estate. They appeared to protect their own interests, and the case may be fairly treated as a suit between the plaintiff on one side and her brothers on the other. But if it be said that they represented the estate, the result is the same, for they elected to testify, and the plaintiff only testified in rebuttal.
The reasons for permitting a party…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Perkins v. PerkinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1878
3Cited by2 opinions
- Parsons v. WentworthSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1904
- Perkins v. PerkinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895