R. F. C. v. Faulkner
| Citation | 122 A.2d 263,100 N.H. 192 |
| Parties | RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION v. Winthrop FAULKNER, Exec. |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1956 |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Howard B. Lane, Keene, for plaintiff.
Faulkner, Plaut & Hanna, Keene, for defendant.
Under RSA 556:1, 3 no action shall be sustained against an executor unless the demand has been exhibited to him within one year after the original grant of administration. Laws of this nature are commonly called nonclaim statutes. See annotation 34 A.L.R.2d 1004. Their purpose is to secure the orderly and expeditious settlement of estates. Sullivan v. Marshall, 93 N.H. 456, 458, 44 A.2d 433.
There is also a deep rooted principle of law that time does not run against the federal or a state government, State v. George C. Stafford & Sons, Inc., 99 N.H. 92, 97, 105 A.2d 569; Davis v. Corona Coal Co., 265 U.S. 219, 44 S.Ct. 552, 68 L.Ed. 987; Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 58 S.Ct. 785, 82 L.Ed. 1224; Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 306 U.S. 381, 59 S.Ct. 516, 83 L.Ed. 784. As far at least as the federal government is concerned this same immunity has been held to apply to nonclaim statutes. United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 60 S.Ct. 1019, 84 L.Ed. 1283; Donnally v. Montgomery County Welfare Board, 200 Md. 534, 92 A.2d 354, 34 A.L.R.2d 996; See annotation 34 A.L.R.2d 1004, 1005.
The RFC being an agency of the federal government, Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Marcum, D.C., 100 F.Supp. 953, enjoys this same privilege unless Congress in creating it has manifested a contrary intention. Lewis v. Moore, 10 Cir., 199 F.2d 745. Although its charter contains certain waivers of federal immunity, such as that of freedom from suit, we find no expressed or implied intention to waive immunity from the application of nonclaim statutes to it. Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. McCarthy Bros., D.C., 117 F.Supp. 345.
It has been argued by the defendant that some of the language of Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in United States v. Summerlin, supra, indicates that this immunity should not apply to a claim against the real estate of Margaret J. Faulkner. Even if it were assumed for the sake of argument that the privilege should not apply when the real estate has been sold by the devisees or by the heirs to a third party, Hatch v. Kelly, 63 N.H. 29, or when the period for bringing suit against an estate has expired, RSA 556:5, or the estate has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lake Winnipesaukee Resort, LLC
...doctrine of law in New Hampshire.In both In re Dockham Estate, 108 N.H. 80, 227 A.2d 774 (1967), and Reconstruction &c. Corporation v. Faulkner, 100 N.H. 192, 122 A.2d 263 (1956), nullum tempus guided our decisions regarding the operation of nonclaim statutes—those prescribing periods withi......
-
Public Service Co. of N.H. v. State
...1389 (1954). This characterization was accurate when made and has been reaffirmed in subsequent decisions. Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Faulkner, 100 N.H. 192, 122 A.2d 263; Opinion of the Justices, 101 N.H. ----, 134 A.2d 279, and cases cited. While the doctrine of sovereign immunity pl......
-
Bushway's Estate, In re
...§ 6321. The limitation of the state statute cannot bar the federal claim, presented before distribution. Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Faulkner, 100 N.H. 192, 193, 122 A.2d 263; W. T. Jones & Co. v. Foodco Realty, Inc., 318 F.2d 881, 888 (4th It is not questioned that possession of the co......
-
Frost v. Frost
...Sullivan v. Marshall, 93 N.H. 456, 458, 44 A.2d 433, 434; Hall v. Brusseau, 100 N.H. 87, 89, 119 A.2d 703; Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Faulkner, 100 N.H. 192, 193, 122 A.2d 263. It is recognized, however, that the conduct of the executor or administrator may be such that failure to comp......