Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

67 N.H. 303

32 A 152

Whidden v. Whidden

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 5, 1892

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1892-12-05

Bill in Equity, alleging in substance that Samuel Whidden died intestate in 1875, and that the plaintiff, Samuel S. Whidden, was appointed administrator de bonis non of his estate March 25, 1890; that the widow of Samuel was appointed administratrix of his estate March 16, 1875, and died December 12, 1875; that there was no administrator of Samuel’s estate between the death of the widow and the appointment of the plaintiff; that.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1946

2 state decisions

Relies on Sugar River Bank v. Fairbank · Hatch v. Kelly · Hathaway v. Noble

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-12-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Clabk, J.

¶1 The claim sought to be enforced against the estate of Mary Parsons is a note for f366.33, dated January 4, 1873, No payment, indorsement, or new promise is alleged, and it appears to have been barred by the statute of limitations in January, 1879, more than six years before the death of Mary Parsons, which occurred in February, 1885. For more than nine years after the original grant of administration on the estate of Samuel Whidden, Mary Parsons was the owner of the real estate described in the bill, and no effort was made to secure the payment of the note, and no explanation is given for the delay. The neglect was unreasonable, and it is a bar to any claim for equitable relief. Hatch v. Kelly, 63 N. H. 29; Hathaway v. Noble, 55 N. H. 508; Sugar River Bank v. Fairbanks, 49 N. H. 131.

¶2 Demurrer sustained.

Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
/67/nh/303 · .json · Public domain