60 N.H. 9
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided June 5, 1880
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1880-06-05
Debt, for the plaintiffs distributive share of an estate. Subject to exception, the defendant proved that before the decree of distribution was made he paid the plaintiff more than her decreed share, and took her receipt in full. The payment was not charged in his account on which the decree was made, and was not recited in the decree. Verdict for the defendant.
Relies on Boudreau v. Eastman · Roulo v. Valcour · Warner Bank v. Clement & Co.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1880-06-05
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1995
3 state decisions
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 →
¶1 The defendant may apply to the probate court forthwith for a modification of the decree on due notice. Warner Bank v. Clement, 58 N. H. 533; Ayer v. Messer, 59 N. H. 279, 280. When the decree shows payment of the plaintiff’s share, judgment' *10 will be rendered on tbe verdict. Roulo v. Valcour, 58 N. H. 347; Morrill v. Hovey, 59 N. H. 107; Boudreau v. Eastman, 59 N. H. 467.
¶2 Qase discharged.