Hemmenway v. Corey

16 Vt. 225
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedJanuary 15, 1844
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 16 Vt. 225 (Hemmenway v. Corey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hemmenway v. Corey, 16 Vt. 225 (Vt. 1844).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Williams, Ch. J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken by Corey, the appellant, from -the decree of the court of probate setting out the dower of the appellee. Corey was neither an heir, creditor, legatee, executor, or administrator, or otherwise interested in the estate of -the deceased. The statute is, that any person interested in any order, &c., may appeal.

It is obvious that a person claiming in any estate, as widow, heir, &c., who may have occasion to obtain any order, sentence, or decree of a court of probate, cannot be obliged to contest this right with any one who is disposed to volunteer in a lawsuit, and take an appeal. The persons entitled to an appeal are those who have some legal interest which may,, by the decree of the court, be either enlarged or diminished. The appellant has no such interest, but claims wholly adverse; and it must be immaterial to him, Whether the dower of the widow is set off in this particular land, or whether the land is set off to an heir, or whether the administrator shall still retain it; he cannot choose the plaintiff, who shall contend with him for it. This subject was fully considered in the case of Woodward v. Spear, 10 Vt. 420, and this very case may be considered as decided by that. This is the only question in the case, which it is necessary for us to decide.

The judgment of the county court is therefore affirmed.

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

Related

Stout v. Mercer
312 N.E.2d 515 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1974)
City of Hammond v. Board of Zoning Appeals
284 N.E.2d 119 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1972)
Metropolitan Dev. Com'n of Marion Co. v. Cullison
277 N.E.2d 905 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1972)
In Re Estate of Gaskell
181 A.2d 67 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1962)
Lyons, Exrx. v. Field, Trustee
175 A. 11 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1934)
In re Enoch Vincent's Estate
78 A. 714 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1911)
State v. Central Vermont Railway Co.
71 A. 193 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1908)
In re Clark's Estate
64 A. 231 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1906)
Manhard Hardware Co. v. Rothschild
80 N.W. 707 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)
In re Varnum
70 Vt. 147 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1897)
McFarland v. Pierce
45 N.E. 706 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1897)
Studabaker v. Markley
34 N.E. 606 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Vt. 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hemmenway-v-corey-vt-1844.