TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Peirce v. Burroughs

Peirce & A., Adm'rs, v. Burroughs, Ex'r

Peirce v. Burroughs, 59 N.H. 512 (1880)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1880
Judges
Smith, Clark
Citations
59 N.H. 512
Headnotes
The statutes permitting parties to testify did not repeal the common-law rule, that in equity the surviving party can testify to matters of account in the discretion of the master, subject to revision by the chancellor.
Summary
Bill in Equity, by the administrators of the estate of Ann R. P. Burroughs against the surviving executor of the will of Charles Burroughs, for an accounting of the income of property bequeathed by the defendant’s testate to Mrs. Burroughs. The defendant claims credit for certain stocks, and rights to take new stock, purchased for Mrs. Burroughs. The matter in controversy was whether the purchase was made by Mrs. Burroughs or by the defendant, and if by the latter, whether with money received from the income of the property bequeathed, or with money furnished by Mrs. Burroughs. The cause was heard by a referee, who permitted the defendant to testify that he made payments for the stocks and rights from the income of the estate. If his testimony was properly admitted, the referee finds that the credits claimed by the defendant should be allowed. The plaintiffs excepted to the testimony.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Smith

Smith, J.

At common law the surviving party could testify in equity in matters of accounting before a master, in his discretion, subject to revision by the chancellor.

Page v. Whidden, 59 N. H. 507. • The statutes permitting parties to testify were not intended to repeal this rule of the common law. The intent of the legislature was in the direction of enlarging, and not of restricting, the admission of testimony.

Clements v. Marston, 52 N. H. 31;

Stewart v. Harriman, 56 N. H. 25, 33;

Day v. Day, 56 N. H. 316, 318. There is nothing in this case which shows that the discretion of the referee was not fairly exercised, and we see no occasion to revise it.

*513 As the witness was properly allowed to testify, the whole amount of credits claimed should be allowed. This result makes it unnecessary to examine the other questions raised at the hearing.

Case discharged.

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1894: 118942026peak 1894 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stevens v. Moulton38 A. 732 (N.H. 1894)

Most recent

  1. Stevens v. Moulton38 A. 732 (N.H. 1894)

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Page v. Whidden, 59 N.H. 507 (1880) 10
Stewart v. Harriman, 56 N.H. 25 (1875) 5
Day v. Day, 56 N.H. 316 (1876) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list