Judge of Probate v. Runnells
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Debt, on the bond of Otis G. Hatch, executor of the will of Clara Salvage. The defendant is executrix of the will of John Runnells, who was one of the sureties on the bond. Facts found by the court.
Read the full summary
Debt, on the bond of Otis G. Hatch, executor of the will of Clara Salvage. The defendant is executrix of the will of John Runnells, who was one of the sureties on the bond. Facts found by the court. By the will of Clara Salvage the executor, Hatch, was appointed trustee, to hold, manage, and use the personal and real estate of the testatrix for the support of Samuel Robertson and Mary S. Robertson, parents of the testatrix, during their lives. .Hatch filed the bond in suit as executor, but never filed a bond as trustee. November 8, 1886, on the petition of Samuel and Mary S. Robertson setting…
1Opinion of the CourtBlodgett, J.
If the presentation of the claim sought to be recovered may be regarded as a sufficient exhibition of it to the defendant, within the statutory requirement as interpreted in Little v. Little, 36 N. H. 224, there can nevertheless be no recovery against her in this proceeding, for want of compliance with the additional requirement of a legal demand of payment (G. L., c. 198, s. 1), which is personal in its nature, and must be made in such a way that the party upon whom it is made may immediately discharge himself by complying therewith. “ In all ordinary cases,” as is said in Whittier v.…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Jaffrey v. SmithSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1911
- Lunderville v. MorseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
- McCarthy v. Board of Aldermen of Central FallsSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1915
- Strafford Savings Bank v. ChurchSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1899
- Cummings v. FarnhamSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.