Willard v. Kingsbury

1 Smith & H. 223
Superior Court of New Hampshire·Decided May 15, 1808·Published

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

now delivered the opinion of the Court, recognizing the doctrine laid down by Mr. Briggs ; and adding that the executor of A. K. could only settle an account which A. K., if alive, could have settled; that it appears that no such account remained to be settled. A. K. was functus officio. [225]*225His office of administrator was at an end. Tlie settlement of Oct. 1, 1808, was a final settlement; and, as far as now appeared, the decree was, in law, a final decree. The judge of probate is not the proper forum to try the question whether the administrator, A. K., or bis representatives, have fulfilled that decree. This must be done at law, either in a suit on tlie administration bond or decree. The executor of Absolem Kingsbury, the administrator, liad nothing to do with the estate of Perrin but to perform tlie decree, and with that the judge of probate has no concern.

Decree reversed. The parties remain where they were before it ■was passed,

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

Willard v. Kingsbury, 1 Smith & H. 223 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1808).

1 Smith & H. 223 (Willard v. Kingsbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Bingham
32 Vt. 329 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1859)