Legal Opinion

Quinn v. Madigan

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 5, 1888PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Probate Appeal. Facts agreed. By his last will, John Burns, after making certain legacies, devised and bequeathed the remainder of his estate to Joseph°Madigan; but if said Joseph should die under age and unmarried, then to the appellants. Joseph Madigan died July 12, 1888, under age and unmarried. The testator died September 22, 1874. The appellee was the guardian of Joseph Madigan, and had the care and control of the property derived from the Burns estate.

Read the full summary

Probate Appeal. Facts agreed. By his last will, John Burns, after making certain legacies, devised and bequeathed the remainder of his estate to Joseph°Madigan; but if said Joseph should die under age and unmarried, then to the appellants. Joseph Madigan died July 12, 1888, under age and unmarried. The testator died September 22, 1874. The appellee was the guardian of Joseph Madigan, and had the care and control of the property derived from the Burns estate. He is also the heir at law of both Joseph Madigan and Mary Burns, wife of the testator, through said Joseph. At the request and on…

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

The expenses of defending the Burns estate against the claims of Nancy Burns and Mary A. Berry were not chargeable to Joseph Madigan. That litigation affected him only as it diminished the estate. The suits being founded upon alleged claims accruing against John Burns in his lifetime, the reasonable expenses in defending against them were proper matters to be allowed by the probate court, and paid out of the assets of his estate.

It is a general rule of the common law that sums of money payable at fixed times are not apportionable during the intervening periods. A contract for the payment of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Granger v. BassettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
  2. Dexter v. PhillipsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  3. Sohier v. EldredgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Cashman v. DumaineSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API