Legal Opinion

Sullivan v. Marshall

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided November 6, 1945No. 3553PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarble, C. J.

The defendant’s answer contains a denial of the allegations of the plaintiff’s bill together with a brief statement to the effect that no demand was made upon her as required by section 1 of chapter 302 of the Public Laws (R. L., c. 355, s. 1), and that suit was not brought “within two years next after the original grant of administration” (P. L., c. 302, s. 5; R. L., c. 355, s. 5). This answer is a sufficient plea in bar to the plaintiff’s claim. Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. Barnes, 48 N. H. 25, 29.

The plaintiff contends, however, that the sections above cited do not apply to the maintenance of an…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Estate of Dutard v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Coffey v. BresnahanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1986
  2. Mark A. Marcucci v. Marion J. Hardy, Mark A. Marcucci v. Marion J. HardyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
  3. Saurman v. LibertySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976
  4. In Re Will and Estate of BourassaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2009
  5. Marcucci v. HardyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995

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