Bailey v. McIntire
Bailey & A., Ex'rs, v. McIntire & A.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Walker, J.
The plaintiffs’ contention, that Mary has a life estate in the land, devised to her, with the right to dispose of it by deed whenever she may deem it necessary to do so “ for her comfort, maintenance, and support,” does not appear to be disputed, and may be a correct statement of the testator’s intention. But it is not the province of the court to determine the validity of Mary’s title, which is derived not from the executors but from the testator, and with reference to which the executors have no duty to perform. A prospective decision of the question suggested, whether in accordance with, or against, the plaintiffs’ claim, would not aid the executors in the performance of a fiduciary duty imposed upon them in their official capacities. They have no such interest in the determination of that question as to require the advice of the court.
Greeley v. Nashua, 62 N. H.
166; Gafney v. Kenison, 64 N. H. 354;
Ellis v. Aldrich, 70 N. H. 219, 222;
Carr v. St. Paul’s Parish, ante, p.
231.
Qase discharged.
All concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.