Appeal of Ela
| Decision Date | 27 July 1894 |
| Citation | 68 N.H. 35,38 A. 501 |
| Parties | Appeal of ELA. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Appeal from probate court, Merrimack county.
Proceeding by George W. Ela, as administrator of the estate of Joseph Ela, deceased, for the settlement of his second account. From the decree of the probate court he appealed, assigning errors in charging him with certain specified sums and disallowing certain specified credits. George W. Ela died since the entry of his appeal, and his administrator, Richard L. Ela, appeared and filed motions that the appeal be dismissed, and that the probate court be ordered to reverse its decrees and dismiss the proceedings relating to the administration of the estate of Joseph Ela, and to revoke the grant of administration and all orders and decrees of said court, because Joseph Ela was not, at the time of his death, last an inhabitant of Merrimack county, but was an inhabitant of Mobile, in the state of Alabama, and had no estate in Merrimack county, and the proceedings in the probate court are therefore void. Denied.
At a court of probate for Merrimack county held April 28, 1863, George W. Ela, then living in Concord, in said county, filed his petition representing that Joseph Ela, late of Mobile, in the state of Alabama, had lately deceased, having at the time of his decease an estate in said county, and that the petitioner was a brother and next of kin to Joseph, and praying that administration thereof be granted to him. On the same day the petitioner was appointed administrator of the estate, and in May he returned an inventory, which was accepted; the property inventoried consisting of promissory notes made in Mobile, Ala., and payable in the city of New York, and stock of steamship and railroad corporations, amounting in the whole to $63,240. He settled his first account in November, 1873, and presented his second account in July, 1892.
The appellant offered to prove, in support of his motion, that the property inventoried was at the time of the appointment in Washington, D. C., and had then never been in the county of Merrimack, or elsewhere in New Hampshire, and that there was then no property of the estate in said county of state; the offer embracing also various other particulars not material to be here stated.
Sylvester Dana and J. M. Mitchell, for appellant's administrator.
S. C. Eastman, for certain heirs of Joseph Ela.
BLODGETT, J. Extended consideration of this case is unnecessary. Few words need be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. Rollings
... ... Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Belknap ... Feb. 6, 1906 ... Transferred from Superior Court; Chamberlin, Judge ... Action by Edwin A. Knight and another against Julia A. Hollings and another. From a decree dismissing the plaintiffs' petition, they appeal. Affirmed ... The testator was born in Tilton in 1841, and resided there until after the close of ... the Civil War, when he removed to Denver, Colo., where his legal residence was thenceforth until March, 1888. He became ill in the early part of 1888, and in March came to the home ... ...
-
Turner v. Campbell
... 101 S.W. 119 124 Mo.App. 133 TURNER, Appellant, v. CAMPBELL, Respondent Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis March 19, 1907 ... Appeal" ... from Louisiana Court of Common Pleas.--Hon. David H. Eby, ... AFFIRMED ... ... Judgment affirmed ... Ball & Sparrow for appellant ... E. E ... Campbell and Pearson & Pearson for respondent ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Turner v. Campbell
...v. Fisk, 39 N. H. 120, 75 Am. Dec. 213; Morgan v. Dodge, 44 N. H. 258, 82 Am. Dec. 213." This decision was followed in Ela's Appeal, 68 N. H. 35, 38 Atl. 501. The same doctrine obtains in Alabama. Robinson v. Robinson, 11 Ala. 947. In that case the court, in construing the Alabama statute p......
-
Power v. Plummer ., 3433.
...of the defendant as administrator of the estate of B. Frank Stodd is not open to collateral attack in this proceeding. Ela's Appeal, 68 N.H. 35, 38 A. 501. It may be pointed out, however, that the ground upon which it is sought to be attacked is untenable. It is conceded that, upon the date......