Citation Numbers: 68 A. 409, 74 N.H. 404
Judges: WALKER, J.
Filed Date: 12/3/1907
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
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,
The fact that the appellees did not succeed in the second suit (Bond v. Bean,
Exception overruled.
All concurred.
Burke v. Railroad , 62 N.H. 531 ( 1883 )
Bond v. Bean , 72 N.H. 444 ( 1904 )
Kimbrough v. Dickinson , 251 Ala. 677 ( 1949 )
Becht v. Miller , 279 Mich. 629 ( 1937 )
Concord Nat'l Bank v. Trustees Uwo Hill , 113 N.H. 490 ( 1973 )
Adams v. Page , 76 N.H. 270 ( 1911 )
Golden Cross v. Donaghey , 75 N.H. 197 ( 1909 )
In Re Bamberger's Estate , 108 N.W.2d 50 ( 1961 )
Wheeler v. Monheimer, Schermer, Van Fredenberg & Smith , 71 Wash. 2d 789 ( 1967 )