Kendall v. Kendall
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for a legacy given to the defendant in trust for his daughter, the plaintiff. The legacy was given and the will approved when the plaintiff was a young child. She is now twenty-three years of age, and had no knowledge of the legacy until about a year prior to the suit.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for a legacy given to the defendant in trust for his daughter, the plaintiff. The legacy was given and the will approved when the plaintiff was a young child. She is now twenty-three years of age, and had no knowledge of the legacy until about a year prior to the suit. The defendant claims that no recovery can be had except by proceedings in probate court or by bill in equity, and that he has expended more than the amount of the legacy in the support and education of the plaintiff, which ought to be allowed in defence. The defendant was never appointed guardian of tbe plaintiff,…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
Tbe defendant was never appointed guardian of the plaintiff, aud the natural guardianship, which existed by reason of the relationship of parent and child, did not authorize the defendant to retain or use tbe fund. 3 Red. Wills 435, 436; Per. Tr., s. 612. As trustee under the will, or as receiving money in trust for the plaintiff, the defendant never gave a bond in probate court for the faithful performance of the trust, as provided by Gen. Laws, c. 205, s. 1, and the probate court has no jurisdiction of the cause. Pickering v. DeRochemont, 45 N. H. 67, 78. Tbe probate court could have…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sparhawk v. Administrator of Ozias BuellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
- In re KaneNew York Court of Chancery · 1847
- Dawes v. HowardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. HumphrysCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1938
- French v. WestgateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1899