Heywood v. Hartshorn
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Bill in equity, brought by William Heywood of Lancaster, in said county, as administrator of the goods and estate of Nathan Baldwin, late of Stratford in said county, to foreclose a mortgage upon certain lands in said Stratford, given by the defendant to the plaintiff’s intestate, August 21, 1862, to secure tlie payment of tlie defendant’s notes to the said Baldwin, amounting in all to $1,648. The defendant filed bis answer, and issue was joined upon a general replication.
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, brought by William Heywood of Lancaster, in said county, as administrator of the goods and estate of Nathan Baldwin, late of Stratford in said county, to foreclose a mortgage upon certain lands in said Stratford, given by the defendant to the plaintiff’s intestate, August 21, 1862, to secure tlie payment of tlie defendant’s notes to the said Baldwin, amounting in all to $1,648. The defendant filed bis answer, and issue was joined upon a general replication. The cause was tried at the April trial term, 1874, of the late supreme court, before FosteR, J. The facts alleged in the…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
1. Baldwin’s domicile, at the time of his decease, appears to have been in Ohio. Administration upon his estate here is ancillary to administration granted in that state, and is necessary for the collection of these notes or the foreclosure of this mortgage. If the notes were never lawfully transferred by Baldwin in his lifetime, the defendant Hartshorn can only be compelled to pay them to an administrator appointed in this state; and payment by him to an administrator appointed in Ohio would be no protection to him against a suit for their collection by an administrator appointed here.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- City and County of Honolulu v. KamHawaii Supreme Court · 1965
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
- Strafford v. WelchSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879