Legal Opinion

Twitchell v. Smith

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 15, 1857Published

Appeal from the decree of the judge of probate. On the 15th day of August, 1854, Smith, the appellee, was appointed guardian of Twitchell, the appellant, as a spendthrift; and on the 5th of September following returned an inventory of his estate.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the decree of the judge of probate. On the 15th day of August, 1854, Smith, the appellee, was appointed guardian of Twitchell, the appellant, as a spendthrift; and on the 5th of September following returned an inventory of his estate. On the 24th of November, 1855, the guardianship over the appellant ceased by decree of the judge of probate, and on the 18th of December, 1855, the account of the appellee as guardian was settled in the probate court, and a decree passed. From that decree the appellant appealed, and set forth several reasons for his appeal. The case was committed to…

1Opinion of the CourtEastmaN, J.

The auditor to whom this case was committed has reported fully the facts, and also his conclusions upon the *50matters in controversy. From his report it appears that three or four unintentional errors occurred in the credits given to the ward, and that the guardian should have been charged for these sums, which amount in all to' $10. The principal matters claimed by the appellant are disallowed by the auditor, for reasons stated by him, and which are satisfactory to the court. No question of law is involved in them, and it is unnecessary to consider them further.

Were these the only matters…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Taylor v. Brittain, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1873

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API