McClure v. Melendy
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
In a writ of entry upon the general issue, it appeared that Mary McClure, being seized of the demanded premises, by her last will, which was duly proved December 13, 1859, devised the same as follows : “I give and bequeath to my beloved husband, Asa McClure, the use and occupancy of my real estate, situated in the northeasterly part of Amherst, during his natural life, and at his decease said estate to be sold at public auction, and the avails thereof to be equally divided…
Read the full summary
In a writ of entry upon the general issue, it appeared that Mary McClure, being seized of the demanded premises, by her last will, which was duly proved December 13, 1859, devised the same as follows : “I give and bequeath to my beloved husband, Asa McClure, the use and occupancy of my real estate, situated in the northeasterly part of Amherst, during his natural life, and at his decease said estate to be sold at public auction, and the avails thereof to be equally divided among my children, or their heirs.” At the January term of the Supreme Judicial Court, 1860, the defendant recovered…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, C. J.
By the Revised Statutes (ch. 195) all real estate may be taken on execution, and shall be appraised and set off to the *471creditor at its just value, iu satisfaction of such execution, and the cost of levying, except in those cases where by law a sale of it is authorized. Sec. 1. The appraisers shall set off to the creditor, by metes and bounds, or other distinct description, the real estate appraised by them, or so much as may be necessary, in payment of the execution and cost of levying. See. 6. To this general rule the statute provides three exceptions :
1. If such real estate is held jointly,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Beardslee v. BeardsleeNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Smith v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Braden v. BerryNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Nason v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1845
3Cited by1 opinion
- Boston, Concord & Montreal Railroad v. Boston & Lowell RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1888