Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ELINOR H. CORAM a. v. MARY E. CONNELL a.

1. A petition for leave to appeal from the decision of a probate court under RSA 567:9 will be denied where the probate decree must be affirmed.

2. Under the descent and distribution statutes (RSA 561:1, 6) an aunt takes to the exclusion of cousins.

LAMPRON, J.

A petition for leave to appeal will be denied under RSA 567:9 if it appears that the decree of the probate court must be affirmed. Rice's Petition, 58 N.H. 200. In such a situation it cannot be found "that injustice has been done by the decision of the judge" of probate as required by said section 9. Broderick v. Smith, 92 N.H. 33, 37.

It has been settled law in this jurisdiction for many years that under RSA 561:1, 6, an aunt takes to the exclusion of cousins. Dodge v. Lewis, 71 N.H. 324; Green v. Bancroft, 75 N.H. 204; Hoyt's, Probate Practice, 241; anno. 54 A.L.R. 2d 1009, 1042. The decree of distribution made by the probate court is in conformity with this established principle and the denial of plaintiffs' petition by the Superior Court was proper. Broderick v. Smith, supra.

In view of the result reached it is unnecessary to pass on the propriety of the ruling made by the probate court that certification of the proposed question of law pertaining to this issue could not be made under RSA 547:30 after its decree of distribution was entered.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CORAM v. CONNELL
(Oct 4, 1960)