Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1833

Judge of Probate v. Locke

Judge of Probate v. Locke
Superior Court of New Hampshire · Decided December 15, 1833 · Richardson
6 N.H. 396

Counsel

Sawyer and 'Hobbs, for the plaintiff., I. Bartlett, for the defendants.

Judge of Probate v. Locke

Opinion of the Court

RichardsoN, C. J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The replication, in this case, is insufficient. In general, a refusal to pay a debt, or legacy, is not a breach of the condition of a probate bond. 5 N. H. Rep. 69; 6 ditto, 142. But a refusal to pay a legacy, to which an executor has assented, is a breach of the condition of a bond to pay debts and legacies. 6 N. H. Rep. 141.

And, in this case, perhaps, if the executrix had admitted the debt to be justly due, and then had afterwards refused to pay, it might have been considered a breach of the condition of this bond.

But no such admission is disclosed in this case. The course to have been pursued by the creditor, was, to bring a suit and have the validity of his claim settled by a judgment, and then a refusal by the executrix, to sat*397isfy the judgment, would have been a breach of the condition of the bond.

. But a refusal to pay a debt, which she considers barred by the statute of limitations, is no breach of the condition of this bond.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.