Sanborn v. Sanborn

18 A. 233, 65 N.H. 172
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1889·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Clark, J.

The note was an executory promise made upon no-sufficient legal consideration, and no action can be maintained upon it. It is invalid as a gift causa mortis. The donor’s own promissory note, payable to the donee, cannot be the subject of a donatio causa mortis. Copp v. Sawyer, 6 N. H. 386; Flint v. Pattee, 33 N. H. 520; Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick. 198. It cannot, operate as a bequest because it was not executed in conformity with the requirements of the statute of wills. Bartlett v. Remington, 59 N. H. 364; Towle v. Wood, 60 N. H. 434; Morey v. Soher, 63 N. H. 507, 513.

Judgment for the defendants.

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

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

Sanborn v. Sanborn, 18 A. 233, 65 N.H. 172 (N.H. 1889).

18 A. 233 (Sanborn v. Sanborn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Estate of Labombarde v. Commissioner
58 T.C. 745 (U.S. Tax Court, 1972)
Hironymous v. Hiatt
199 P. 850 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)