Bean v. Bean
| Decision Date | 03 December 1907 |
| Citation | 68 A. 409,74 N.H. 404 |
| Parties | BEAN et al. v. BEAN et al. BOND v. SAME. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Peaslee, Judge.
Judicial proceedings in the settlement of the estate of John D. Bean, deceased. There was a judgment fixing the expenses incurred for the benefit of the estate and Electa C. Bean and Emma R. Bond, executrices, bring exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
For former reports, see 71 N. H. 538, 53 Atl. 907, and 72 N. H. 444, 57 Atl. 340, 101 Am. St. Rep. 686.
The appellants are executrices of the estate of John D. Bean, and the property in question was willed to them for life. The remainder was willed to the appellees. Only a part of the latter joined in the employment of counsel. It was ordered that so much of the fees and expenses as should be determined to have been reasonably incurred for the benefit of the fund should be paid by the estate, and the appellants excepted.
Burnham, Brown, Jones & Warren, for plaintiffs. Mitchell & Foster, for defendants.
As executrices, it was the duty of the appellants to protect and conserve the estate committed to their care. But as they were personally interested in the property in question, claiming adversely to the estate to be the absolute owners of it, the interests of the estate in it were in fact protected by the intervention of one or more of the legatees, the appellees. That such intervention was reasonably necessary and prudent, the result of one of the suits seems to establish. Bean v. Bean, 71 N. H. 538, 53 Atl. 907. The result of that suit added to the estate or trust fund certain property which the executrices claimed to own individually. A finding by the superior court that the appellees are equitably entitled to reasonable compensation on this account out of the trust fund presents no error of law. Burke v. Railroad, 62 N. H. 531.
The fact that the appellees did not succeed in the second suit (Bond v. Bean, 72 N. H. 444, 57 Atl. 340, 101 Am. St Rep. 686) does not conclusively show that they may not also be entitled to remuneration from the estate for the expenses incurred therein. It is merely a circumstance bearing upon the reasonableness of the services and the good faith in rendering them for the estate. In legal effect, they represented the estate as much as though they had been the executors of it. Bean v. Bean, 71 N. H. 538, 540, 53 Atl. 907.
Exceptions overruled. All concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kimbrough v. Dickinson
...v. Bean, 74 N.H. 404, 68 A. 409, 124 Am.St.Rep. 978, is factually identical with the instant case, except that there were two trustees in the Bean case and only one here. On the hand, appellees contend that the case of Grimball v. Cruse, 70 Ala. 534, is conclusive against the claim of appel......
-
Merkel v. Long, 72
...v. Greenough, supra, was cited, and the Court quoted with approval from the language of the New Hampshire supreme court in Bean v. Bean, 74 N.H. 404, 68 A. 409, as follows: "As executrices, it was the duty of the appellants to protect and conserve the estate committed to their care. But as ......
-
Becht v. Miller, 27.
...In re Lounsberry's Estate, 226 App.Div. 291, 234 N.Y.S. 680; 79 A.L.R. 526. The following language is to be found in Bean v. Bean, 74 N.H. 404, 68 A. 409,124 Am.St.Rep. 978: ‘As executrices, it was the duty of the appellants to protect and conserve the estate committed to their care. But as......
-
Concord Nat. Bank v. Hill
...case is a practice not to encouraged. See Concord National Bank v. Haverhill, 101 N.H. 416, 419, 145 A.2d 61, 63 (1959); Bean v. Bean, 74 N.H. 404, 68 A. 409 (1907). Exceptions overruled; All concurred. ...