Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 N.H. 116

Bryant v. Allen

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided March 15, 1833

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1833-03-15

Joins* Alle.u v*&> acrrunistrator of Samuel Marble, deceased. and. on the 13th Apri.. 182*. his account, as administrator. tras showed by the Judge of probate, and a balance ot ⅛got,21. found due *o the administrator Bryant appealed from the decree of the Judge of probate, allowing the said account, and to show his right to appeal, he relied upon the following circumstances.

Cited in Black's (1891)’s definition of “Aggrieved Party” · Black's (1910)’s definition of “Aggrieved Party”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1833-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 2009

19 state decisions

30183318401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Richardson, C. J.

¶2The jurisdiction of a Judge of probate is, in general, sole and exclusive ; and his decisions, regularly made, of matters within his jurisdiction, are, unless an appeal is interposed, conclusive against all the world. 1 Coke 138, Kenn’s case; Cro. James, 186, Robertson v. Stallage; Philip’s Evidence, 243—248; Carthew, 225, Jones v. Bow; 1 Salkeld, 290, Blackham’s case; 2 Wilson, 122; Robbins v. Crutchley; 16 Mass. Rep. 433, Dulbin v. Chadburne; 16 Mass. Rep. 112, Newhall v. Sadler; 3 D. & E. 639, Cross v. Salter; 1 Starkie’s Ev. 231—236; 2 Strange, 961, Dacosta v. Villa Real; 1 Gallison, 622, Spencer v. Spencer; 9 Pick. 446, Harvard College v. Amory; 1 Levintz, 235, Noel v. Wells; 4 Coke, 29, Bunting v. Lessinwell; Moor, 169; S. C.; 3 D. & E. Allen v. Dundas.

¶3Every person, whose rights are in any way involved *118¿a the proceedings of the Judge of probate, has a right to become a party to the proceedings, and to be heard. And the statute of July 2, 1822. regulating appeals from decisions of Judges of probate, enacts, that any person, or party aggrieved by any decree, sentence, appointment, order, grant, or denial of any Judge of probate, which, if not appealed from might conclude the interest of such person or party, may appeal therefrom to the superior court.

¶4Jfo doubt is entertained that every person, whose rights may be affected by the decree, may be considered as so aggrieved as fo entitle him to appeal

¶5In this case a balance in favor of the administrator, to the amount of $201,24, was allowed by the decree from which this appeal was taken. There is no personal estate, and this balance can be satisfied in no other way than by a sale of the real estate.

¶6If this appeal shall be dismissed, a sale of the real estate, to raise a sum equal to the said balance, may be authorized hy, the Judge of probate, and the land which the appellant holds, be sold for that purpose. Yet there ⅛ no way in which the merits of this decree can be examined, unless it can be done on this appeal. If this decree is permitted to stand, the appellant will be forever concluded by it.

¶7We are of opinion that he is entitled to prosecute the appeal, and that the motion to dismiss it must he overruled.

/6/nh/116 · .json · Public domain