Hood v. Marshall
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Appeal, from a decree of the probate court, ordering Marshall, as administrator of Crippen, to pay over to Hood, as administrator of Lawrence, any balance in his hands belonging to-the estate of Lawrence, of whose estate in his lifetime Crippen was administrator. Facts found by the court. The appeal was taken in good faith by Hood, who assigned, as reasons for his appeal, insufficiency and ambiguity in the decree.
Read the full summary
Appeal, from a decree of the probate court, ordering Marshall, as administrator of Crippen, to pay over to Hood, as administrator of Lawrence, any balance in his hands belonging to-the estate of Lawrence, of whose estate in his lifetime Crippen was administrator. Facts found by the court. The appeal was taken in good faith by Hood, who assigned, as reasons for his appeal, insufficiency and ambiguity in the decree. At the term at which it was entered, counsel for Hood marked the case for trial by the court; but before the trial, at the same term, moved for leave to dismiss the appeal. Counsel…
1Opinion of the CourtBlodgett, C. J.
In analogy to the right of a plaintiff to become nonsuit before opening' his case to the jury, it is the right of an appellant from the decree of the probate court to have , his appeal dismissed at any time before trial. Doughty v. Little, 61 N. H. 365, 366; Simpson v. Gafney, 66 N. H. 477.
So far as appears, there was no error in denying the sureties’ motion that they be allowed to prosecute the appeal. Their interests are understood to be adverse to those of the appellant, and their reasons of appeal to be different from Kis ; and, if this be so, the granting of their motion would not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Doughty v. LittleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
- Simpson v. GafneySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
3Cited by1 opinion
- Goin v. ChuteOregon Supreme Court · 1927