Carpenter v. Wild
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, by Thomas Carpenter, of Rehoboth, Mass., executor of Thomas Carpenter 2d, late of same place, against Benjamin Wild, of Chesterfield, N. II. The first count was upon a note made by the defendant to the plaintiff’s testator. The defendant’s third plea was, that the plaintiff never was executor of the last will, &c., of Thomas Carpenter 2d, nor ever administered any of his goods as such.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, by Thomas Carpenter, of Rehoboth, Mass., executor of Thomas Carpenter 2d, late of same place, against Benjamin Wild, of Chesterfield, N. II. The first count was upon a note made by the defendant to the plaintiff’s testator. The defendant’s third plea was, that the plaintiff never was executor of the last will, &c., of Thomas Carpenter 2d, nor ever administered any of his goods as such. The plaintiff replied that he was and is executor, and hath administered the deceased’s goods as such. Issue joined. The evidence was, letters testamentary granted by the judge of probate, in the…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, C. J.
As to the question saved on the third issue. It comes within the principle of a case decided at the Law Term, in Grafton, December, 1813, Mary Atwood, adm'x, v. Nath. Rix, which was assumpsit on a promissory note made by Rix to Moses Atwood, the intestate. The defendant pleaded in bar, among other pleas, that no letters of administration upon the goods or estate of Moses Atwood had been issued to the plaintiff by any probate court within this State. Plaintiff *366demurred, and defendant joined in demurrer. The plea in bar was adjudged good.
We are sensible that it has formerly been the usage, in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Purple & Burrows v. WhithedSupreme Court of Vermont · 1876
- Walsh v. NourseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813