Legal Opinion

Souhegan National Bank v. Kenison

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided April 7, 1942No. 3317PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, C. J.

Somewhat interdependent, two issues of construction of the final residuary clause are presented. One is the meaning of the word “suggestive” in description of the memorandum stated to have been prepared and made a part of the will. The other arises from the fact that contrary to the assertion of the clause, no memorandum in fact had been prepared.

The word “suggestive” in characterizing the memorandum falls far short of any implication of requirement and does not signify even an advisory treatment to be given the memorandum. It prescribes no range of selection limited to the memorandum, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Carter v. WhitcombSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908
  2. Glover v. BakerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1912
  3. Haynes v. CarrSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
  4. Clark v. CummingsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Holt v. College of Osteopathic Physicians & SurgeonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Estate of BunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Goetz v. Old National Bank of MartinsburgWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Attorney Gen. v. Rochester Trust Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975
  5. Bunnell v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949

4 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