Ross v. Church

90 A. 174, 77 N.H. 592, 1914 N.H. LEXIS 198
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided February 3, 1914·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

*593 Parsons, C. J.

As the plaintiff does not occupy a fiduciary position entitling him for his protection to the prospective decision of questions that may arise under the will, and as the defendant, whom the plaintiff claims does occupy such a position, does not desire, but objects to, their present determination by way of advice to him, there is no ground upon which the court may lawfully advise the parties. Glover v. Baker, 76 N. H. 393; Day v. Washburn, 76 N. H. 203; Harvey v. Harvey, 73 N. H. 106; Drake v. True, 72 N. H. 322; Bailey v. McIntire, 71 N. H. 329; Ellis v. Aldrich, 70 N. H. 219, 222; Gafney v. Kenison, 64 N. H. 354; Greeley v. Nashua, 62 N. H. 166, 167; Opinion of the Justices, 62 N. H. 706; P. S., c. 207, s. 8.

Exception overruled.

Peaslee, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Ross v. Church, 90 A. 174, 77 N.H. 592, 1914 N.H. LEXIS 198 (N.H. 1914).

90 A. 174 (Ross v. Church) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wallace v. Brown
3 A.2d 95 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1938)
McAllister v. Elliot
140 A. 708 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1928)
Flanders v. Parker
120 A. 558 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1923)
Scammon v. Pearson
107 A. 605 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1919)