Legal Opinion

Cadbury v. Parrish

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 21, 1938PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarble, J.

Although the state in which the testatrix intended the trust to be administered is presumptively the state of her domicile at the time of her death (Am. Law Inst., Restatement of Conflict of Laws, s. 298, Comment a; see Mann v. Carter, 74 N. H. 345), it should be borne in mind that the will was made in Pennsylvania at a time when the testatrix was domiciled in that state, that one of the trustees named by her was a trust company doing business in Pennsylvania, and that the will was executed only a few years after the will by which she acquired much of the stock in question had been construed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brahmey v. RollinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1935
  2. Langley v. FarmingtonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
  3. Mann v. CarterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
  4. Gale v. GaleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Raffety v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1957
  2. George Hunter Raffety, Individually and as Trustee of the Raffety Estate, Pauline Raffety, Ellot Hunter Raffety, Martha Raffety, Mary Raffety, Captola Raffety and Mildred Smith v. Bessie B. Raffety Parker, Victor B. Harris, Guardian Ad Litem for the Minor Joe Grant Raffety, Fred Dennis Raffety, Phillip Stephen Raffety, Daniel Raffety, John Ulysses Raffety and Julia Elizabeth Raffety v. Bessie B. Raffety ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API