Piper v. Piper

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Piper v. Piper

2 N.H. 439

CourtSuperior Court of New Hampshire

DecidedFebruary 15, 1822

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2 N.H. 439 (Piper v. Piper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Piper v. Piper, 2 N.H. 439 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

By the court.

The real question in this case is, whether the principal could maintain an action against the trustee to recover the legacy given to the principal in the will of Mary Bennett; for if he could, the trustee is chargeable ; otherwise not. It seems now to be well settled* that an action lies to recover a legacy charged upon lands. 1 Chitty’s Pl. 91.—7 John. 99, Sucker vs. Bucher.—10 ditto 30, Orders vs. Orders.—2 Salk. 415, Ewer vs. Jones.—2 Ld. Ray. 936, S. C.—6 Mod. Rep. 26, S. C.—4 Mass. Rep. 634, Tarwell vs. Jacobs.

We are therefore of opinion, that the trustee must be charged.

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

By the court.

The real question in this case is, whether the principal could maintain an action against the trustee to recover the legacy given to the principal in the will of Mary Bennett; for if he could, the trustee is chargeable ; otherwise not. It seems now to be well settled* that an action lies to recover a legacy charged upon lands. 1 Chitty’s Pl. 91.—7 John. 99, Sucker vs. Bucher.—10 ditto 30, Orders vs. Orders.—2 Salk. 415, Ewer vs. Jones.—2 Ld. Ray. 936, S. C.—6 Mod. Rep. 26, S. C.—4 Mass. Rep. 634, Tarwell vs. Jacobs.

We are therefore of opinion, that the trustee must be charged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.H. 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piper-v-piper-nhsuperct-1822.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack