Piper v. Piper

Decided February 15, 1822

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1822-02-15

An action lies to recover a legacy charged upon land. In this case, it appeared from the answer of the trustee, that one Mary Bennett, on the 2d January, 1818, made her will, which contained the following clauses : “ 1 give, be- “ queath and devise to my son, John Bennett., fifty dollars, “ to be paid him by my grandson, Joseph Piper, out of the “ estate I hereinafter give him,” , “ I give, bequeath and devise to my grandson, Joseph “ Piper, all the rest, residue or…

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1884

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1822-02-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the court.

¶1The real question in this case is, whether the principal could maintain an action against the trustee to recover the legacy given to the principal in the will of Mary Bennett; for if he could, the trustee is chargeable ; otherwise not. It seems now to be well settled* that an action lies to recover a legacy charged upon lands. 1 Chitty’s Pl. 91.—7 John. 99, Sucker vs. Bucher.—10 ditto 30, Orders vs. Orders.—2 Salk. 415, Ewer vs. Jones.—2 Ld. Ray. 936, S. C.—6 Mod. Rep. 26, S. C.—4 Mass. Rep. 634, Tarwell vs. Jacobs.

¶2We are therefore of opinion, that the trustee must be charged.