Barstow v. Tetlow
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Appeal from decree of Judge of Probate, County of Kennebec, State of Maine, to the Supreme Court of Probate. At conclusion cf testimony, the cause was reported for the determination of the Law Court, and upon so much of the evidence as is legally admissible, the court to render such judgment as the law and evidence require. Decree of court stated in opinion. Appeal not sustained.
Read the full summary
Appeal from decree of Judge of Probate, County of Kennebec, State of Maine, to the Supreme Court of Probate. At conclusion cf testimony, the cause was reported for the determination of the Law Court, and upon so much of the evidence as is legally admissible, the court to render such judgment as the law and evidence require. Decree of court stated in opinion. Appeal not sustained. Decision of court, that the fund in question does not belong to the appellant, but is a part of the estate of Amanda M. Kent, and should be so accounted for. Case stated in opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtKing, J.
February 9, 1909, Amanda M. Kent made a deposit in the Providence Institution for Savings of Providence, Rhode Island in the names of “Amanda M. Kent or Ellen J. Tetlow or the survivor of them.” Mrs. Kent died August 27, 1910, testate. Her will was proved and allowed in the probate court for Kennebec County, Maine, and the executrices therein named, Ellen J. Tetlow and Eva R. Crane, were appointed and qualified. At the time of Mrs. Kent’s death the amount to the credit of said bank deposit was $6,188.90, which Ellen J. Tetlow thereafter drew out of said bank claiming title thereto. Thereupon,…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Rice v. Bennington County Savings BankSupreme Court of Vermont · 1920
- McNabb v. FisherArizona Supreme Court · 1931
- People's Savings Bank v. RynnSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1937
- White v. ToneyCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1992
- Barboza v. McLeodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.