Holmes v. Bridgman
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an appeal from the probate court in decreeing that the defendant was guilty of bad faith and wanting in due diligence as administrator of the estate of Elizabeth Wooley; and was chargeable for the property which he would have received as administrator by the exercise of reasonable diligence and good faith, as set forth in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from the probate court in decreeing that the defendant was guilty of bad faith and wanting in due diligence as administrator of the estate of Elizabeth Wooley; and was chargeable for the property which he would have received as administrator by the exercise of reasonable diligence and good faith, as set forth in the opinion of the court. The county court appointed a commissioner to report the facts, who found them as follows: In March, 1849, Samuel Wooley Sen. died, leaving a farm worth $2700. Previous to his decease, he had given all his personal property to his son, and…
1Opinion of the CourtAldis, J.
The plaintiff as a creditor of the estate of Elizabeth Wooley filed his petition in the probate court, setting forth that the defendant had neglected to file any inventory of the property of the estate and to render any account of his administration, and praying the court to cite him in to render his account, and that he be ordered to pay the debts against the estate including the claims of the plaintiff. This proceeding was according to the statute. GS-. S. chap. 54 §10 ef seq. The defendant appeared and rendered his account stating that no estate of the said Elizabeth ever came to his…
2Cited by9 opinions
- McCloskey v. GleasonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- Witters v. SowlesUnited States Circuit Court · 1887
- Estate of Johnson v. Estate of JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- In re Hatch's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1890
- Davis v. EastmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.