Legal Opinion

Amoskeag Trust Co. v. Haskell

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 3, 1950No. 3859PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLampron, J.

“The law is too well settled in this jurisdiction to require extended citation, that the testator’s intent is the sovereign guide in the interpretation of a will and this intent being ascertained, the Court must enforce it unless it is illegal or impossible to do so.” Stearns v. Matthews, 94 N. H. 435, 437; Osgood v. Vivada, 94 N. H. 222. “The testator’s intention “is determined as a question of fact by competent evidence, and not by rules of law.” Edgerly v. Barker, 66 N. H. 434, 447; Osgood v. Vivada, supra, 224. Such competent evidence are “the situation of the testator, the surrounding…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. New Haven Bank, N. B. A. v. HubingerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  2. Hale v. HaleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1925

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of SayewichSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980
  2. Royce v. Estate of DenbySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
  3. Commerce Trust Company v. DudenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1975
  4. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. CoffinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  5. In Re WolfNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API