TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mathews v. Kelly

Michael Mathews v. John M. Kelly, executors, &c.

Mathews v. Kelly, 67 A. 1075 (N.J. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 18, 1906
Citations
67 A. 107570 N.J. Eq. 7964 Robb. 7961906 N.J. LEXIS 169
Headnotes
Twenty years after the final account of a guardian of a deceased lunatic has been allowed by the orphans court it will be presumed that the balance in the hands of the guardian has been distributed among those entitled to it.
Summary
On appeal from a decree of tlie court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Bergen, who, at the close of the argument, delivered the following opinion: I will dispose of this matter now. This account, which was duty filed and on the 14th day of March, 1883, approved by the orphans court, ascertained that there came to the hands of Lawrence Mathews, as the guardian of his deceased father, a lunatic, $1,665.22, more than twenty j^ears before the bill was filed in the cause. It seems to me, in view of this circumstance, that this court would not be justified in holding that the money thus received has not been property accounted for. A mortgage that lias not had a payment made on it for twenty years is presumed to be paid, in equity as well as at law, and, so far as it appears, the guardian lived in this state until 1903, twenty years after his account was presented and passed, during which time none of the parties now claiming this fund made any demand against him for it. If they did, the presumption is, until overcome by evidence to the contrary, that they were paid. I cannot see that there is any reason for holding this bill, and will therefore advise its dismissal.

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

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from is- affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered in the court of chancery by Vice-Chancellor Bergen.

For affirmance—The- Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, Garretson, Hendrickson, Pitney, Swayze, Reed, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Green, Gray, Dill—13.

For reversal—Port—1.

How later courts describe this case

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

1939: 11994: 119392026peak 1939 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pagano v. United Jersey Bank648 A.2d 269 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994)
  2. Phair v. Melosh6 A.2d 491 (N.J. Ct. of Ch. 1939)

Most recent

  1. Pagano v. United Jersey Bank648 A.2d 269 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994)
  2. Phair v. Melosh6 A.2d 491 (N.J. Ct. of Ch. 1939)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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