Waterbury v. Netherland
Tennessee Supreme Court
PROM HAWKINS. Appeal from the decree of the Chancery Court, May Term, 1871. H. C. Smith, Chancellor. 1. Complainant having been prevented from dissenting within the time prescribed, in consequence of a statement made by the executor, a lawyer, is entitled to relief in equity.
Read the full summary
PROM HAWKINS. Appeal from the decree of the Chancery Court, May Term, 1871. H. C. Smith, Chancellor. 1. Complainant having been prevented from dissenting within the time prescribed, in consequence of a statement made by the executor, a lawyer, is entitled to relief in equity. She has been deprived of her right under circumstances which the law would reghrd as constituting fraud, although there was no malus dolus: citing Smart v. Waterhouse, 10 Yerg., 94. 2. The acceptance of a share of the notes by the complainant did not amount to an election to take under the will. A distribution was not…
1Opinion of the CourtFreemaN, J.
The bill in this case is filed by Anne P. Phipps, then widow of Joshua Phipps, but who has since intermarried with Calvin Waterbury, claiming dower in the lands of her late husband, and her distributive share of his personalty, on the assumption that she was *515entitled to this relief by-having dissented from his will.
The husband, Joshua Phipps, died in July, 1861, after making his will, which was duly probated at August Term, 1861, of the County Court of Hawkins county, at Rogersville. By said will, Joseph B. Heis-kell, Frank L. Phipps, and Robert G. Netherland were appointed executors, and…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Draper v. MorrisIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Fosher v. GuilliamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Hamilton v. GalbraithCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1932
- Texarkana v. James & Mayo Realty Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- Securities Inv. Co. v. ArmstrongTennessee Supreme Court · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.