Burns v. Madigan
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for the support of the plaintiff’s infant grandchild, being the child of the defendant and his deceased wife, who was daughter of the plaintiff, and of whose will the defendant was executor. By the will, the plaintiff’ and the defendant each took one half the income of the estate for life, remainders in fee to the child. After the death of the child’s mother it lived with the plaintiff, and she supported it.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for the support of the plaintiff’s infant grandchild, being the child of the defendant and his deceased wife, who was daughter of the plaintiff, and of whose will the defendant was executor. By the will, the plaintiff’ and the defendant each took one half the income of the estate for life, remainders in fee to the child. After the death of the child’s mother it lived with the plaintiff, and she supported it. There was no evidence of any contract with the deceased, nor with the defendant, for the support of the child, nor evidence from which a contract could be inferred. The…
1Opinion of the CourtAubUN, J.
Without a contract, express or to be inferred, the plaintiff cannot recover. Kelley v. Davis, 49 N. H. 187, 189; Bundy v. Hyde, 50 N. N. 116; Cook v. Bennett, 51 N. H. 85, 93.
Without the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff could not be permitted to testify, except upon matters to which the testatrix, if living, could not testify. Chandler v. Davis, 47 N. H. 462; Harvey v. Hilliard, 47 N. H. 551; Fosgate v. Thompson, 54 N. H. 455; Hoit v. Russell, 56 N. H. 559. It does not appear that the plaintiff offered to testify to matters arising subsequent to the death of the testatrix; and no…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McConnell v. LamontagneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Parsons v. WentworthSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1904
- Plymouth v. HaverhillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1898
- Ingalls v. BurlingameSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1901