Sullivan v. Indian Head Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 15 December 1954 |
| Citation | 99 N.H. 262,109 A.2d 572 |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
| Parties | Isabel L. SULLIVAN, Ex'x et al. v. INDIAN HEAD NATIONAL BANK, Ex'r. |
Albert Terrien, Bolic A. Degasis, Nashua, for plaintiff.
Sullivan & Gregg, S. Robert Winer, Nashua, for defendant.
The Court properly found that at the conclusion of the hearing on defendant's petition to have decedent's will proved in solemn form, R.L. c. 351, § 7, the Judge of Probate affirmed the former probate, so stated orally from the bench in open court and endorsed his decree on the petition. Harris v. Crocker, 97 N.H. 311, 312, 86 A.2d 853.
No statute requires that notice of this decision be sent to the parties. Nor was there any evidence of a rule of court so requiring or of a well established custom so to do. We therefore agree with defendant's position that the action of the probate court constituted at least constructive notice of the decree confirming the prior allowance and approval of this will in common form. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 328 Ill. 136, 143, 159 N.E. 274; First Nat. Bank of Spring Mills v. Walker, 296 Pa. 192, 196, 145 A. 804; State ex rel. Harp v. Vanderburgh Circuit Court, 227 Ind. 353, 360, 85 N.E.2d 254, 11 A.L.R.2d 1108; 49 C.J.S., Judgments § 112, p. 236. This would be sufficient to put in operation the statutory period within which an appeal therefrom was to be taken under Revised Laws, chapter 365, section 2.
In considering whether the conduct of the plaintiff, and more particularly that of her counsel, constituted 'mistake, accident or misfortune' and not neglect, it is clear that the statute, R.L. c. 365, § 7, confers discretion on the Trial Court to decide these matters on the basis of the particular facts involved. Beaudoin v. Couture, 98 N.H. 272, 275, 98 A.2d 148. However this exercise of discretion calls for a determination of questions of fact and not for dispensation of grace. To be sustained, it must find support in the record. Twardosky v. New England Tel. & Tel. Company, 95 N.H. 279, 285, 62 A.2d 723, and cases cited. Such support is lacking in this case.
The findings establish that plaintiff's counsel 'must be considered as having known the time limit on appeals,' and also the fact that 'they made no inquiries * * * to determine what decree if any the [Probate Court] had made.' There was evidence that 'two or three times a week' one of them was in the registry where the decree was a public record. The other testified that he 'naturally would' have inquired about the decree 'but * * * did have a lot of work to do.' For four months neither asked that he be notified or made any inquiry. The evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lavoie v. Bourque
...for abuse. Shea v. Starr, 76 N.H. 538, 85 A. 788; Woodsville Fire District v. Cray, 88 N.H. 264, 266, 187 A. 478; Sullivan v. Indian Head Nat. Bank, 99 N.H. 262, 109 A.2d 572. To support his contention that discretion was abused, the plaintiff relies upon the absence of strict compliance wi......
-
Green v. Foster
...of securing the orderly and expeditious settlement of estates. Beaudoin v. Couture, 98 N.H. 272, 98 A.2d 148; Sullivan v. Indian Head National Bank, 99 N.H. 262, 109 A.2d 572. The probate appeal statute (RSA 567:1) also expresses a policy against will contests except by those who can show a......
-
Agway, Inc. v. Luce
...be excusable, i. e., not culpable.' That conclusion must be upheld if it is supported by credible evidence. Sullivan v. Indian Head National Bank, 99 N.H. 262, 108 A.2d 553 (1954); State v. Coburn, 133 Ohio St. 192, 12 N.E.2d 471 There must be evidence to support a finding both that justice......
-
Mercer v. Merchants Nat. Bank
...court that actions of counsel barred the appeal, all involved 'unreasonable neglect' on the part of the counsel. Sullivan v. Indian Head Nat. Bank, 99 N.H. 262, 109 A.2d 572; Arnold v. Hay, 95 N.H. 499, 66 A.2d 705; Broderick v. Smith, 92 N.H. 33, 23 A.2d 774. In every one of these cases it......