Appeal of Hackett

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Appeal of Hackett

65 A. 268, 27 R.I. 587, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 43

DecidedJune 11, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A. 268 (Appeal of Hackett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Appeal of Hackett, 65 A. 268, 27 R.I. 587, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 43 (R.I. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the decree of the Probate Court of Woonsocket refusing to grant letters of administration on the estate of Thomas F. Hackett, alleged to- *588 bave deceased. The appeal was taken under the General Laws to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and, ■coming on to be heard by a single justice, was reserved by him to be heard by the full court.

John J. Heffernan and James H. Richard, Jr., for appellants.

The evidence showed that Thomas F. Hackett left Woon-socket in 1879, leaving there deposits in a bank upon which he drew from time to time. He also corresponded ‘ with the treasurer of the bank in Woonsocket in regard to selling some real estate which he had inherited, and in March, 1886, executed a deed of the same in Carson City, Nevada, and the purchase money was forwarded to him there. On August 5, 1887, Hackett withdrew $50 from his bank account. None of his ■ family or friends or any of the bank officials have heard anything from him since that time, and though his half-brother made efforts to locate him, such efforts were unavailing.

(1) The only question in the case is whether or not said Thomas F. Hackett is dead. The appeal was certified May 18, 1905, and on May 29, 1905, the opinion in Re Truman, 27 R. I. 209, was handed down, which held that one who has been absent from his home and unheard of by his family for seven years is presumed to be dead. That case is directly in point, and the question in the present case must be answered in the affirmative.

, The cause is remitted to the Superior Court, with direction to enter a decree sustaining the appeal and reversing the decree ■of the Probate Court.

*590 Julius L. Mitchell and Frank F. Nolan, for plaintiff. Gardner, Pirce and Thornley, Charles H. Koehne, Jr., and William W. Moss, for defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the decree of the Probate Court of Woonsocket refusing to grant letters of administration on the estate of Thomas F. Hackett, alleged to- *588 bave deceased. The appeal was taken under the General Laws to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and, ■coming on to be heard by a single justice, was reserved by him to be heard by the full court.

John J. Heffernan and James H. Richard, Jr., for appellants.

The evidence showed that Thomas F. Hackett left Woon-socket in 1879, leaving there deposits in a bank upon which he drew from time to time. He also corresponded ‘ with the treasurer of the bank in Woonsocket in regard to selling some real estate which he had inherited, and in March, 1886, executed a deed of the same in Carson City, Nevada, and the purchase money was forwarded to him there. On August 5, 1887, Hackett withdrew $50 from his bank account. None of his ■ family or friends or any of the bank officials have heard anything from him since that time, and though his half-brother made efforts to locate him, such efforts were unavailing.

(1) The only question in the case is whether or not said Thomas F. Hackett is dead. The appeal was certified May 18, 1905, and on May 29, 1905, the opinion in Re Truman, 27 R. I. 209, was handed down, which held that one who has been absent from his home and unheard of by his family for seven years is presumed to be dead. That case is directly in point, and the question in the present case must be answered in the affirmative.

, The cause is remitted to the Superior Court, with direction to enter a decree sustaining the appeal and reversing the decree ■of the Probate Court.

*590 Julius L. Mitchell and Frank F. Nolan, for plaintiff. Gardner, Pirce and Thornley, Charles H. Koehne, Jr., and William W. Moss, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A. 268, 27 R.I. 587, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-hackett-ri-1906.