Parker v. Nims
Superior Court of New Hampshire
A. died seized in fee of land, which had descended to him from his father, leaving uncles and aunts on his father’s and on bis mother’s side, who were the next of kin, and also children of a deceased aunt — It was held that the land descended in equal shares to the uncles and aunts on both sides, but nothing descended to the children of the deceased aunt This was a petition for partition of certain real estate, in •which the petitioner alleged that he was seized of two…
Read the full summary
A. died seized in fee of land, which had descended to him from his father, leaving uncles and aunts on his father’s and on bis mother’s side, who were the next of kin, and also children of a deceased aunt — It was held that the land descended in equal shares to the uncles and aunts on both sides, but nothing descended to the children of the deceased aunt This was a petition for partition of certain real estate, in •which the petitioner alleged that he was seized of two eighth parts of the land as tenant in common with Zadock Mims and others, and prayed partition. The case was submitted to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
Our statute of February 3, 1789,(1) enacts, that “where there are no children or child of the intestate, “the inheritance shall descend equally to the next of kin, “ in equal degree, and those who represent them. No person “ to be admitted as a legal representative of collaterals be- “ yond the degree of brothers’ and sisters’ children.” , It is very clear that the children of the deceased aunt take nothing in this case. They are beyond the degree of brothers’ and sisters’ children. 1 Pierre Williams 593, Bowers vs. Littlewood.— Lovelass on Wills 77. It is equally clear, that the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Robinson v. LeavittSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834
- Mostilla v. AshSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- In re Estate of MartineauSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1985
- In re Estate of TraskSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1988