Legal Opinion

Coleman v. Coleman

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided November 4, 1947No. 3679PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKenison, J.

The defendant elected not to take his distributive share in fee in his wife’s estate “by releasing his estate by the curtesy and his homestead right” (R. L., c. 359, s. 13) and therefore retained his homestead right (R. L., c. 260, ss. 1, 2) and an estate by curtesy as “at common law.” R. L., c. 359, s. 9; Riel v. Press, 70 N. H. 334. If a literal reading of the statute (R. L., c. 410, ss. 1, 25) permits partition between life tenants and remaindermen, we are bound by the construction placed upon it in 1923 in Brierley v. Brierley, 81 N. H. 133, 137, that there may be partition “only by…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ellis v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1977
  2. American Ins. Co. v. IaconiSupreme Court of Delaware · 1952
  3. American Insurance v. IaconiSuperior Court of Delaware · 1952
  4. In re Estate of NortonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1991
  5. American Insurance v. IaconiSuperior Court of Delaware · 1951

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API