History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ross v. Church
77 N.H. 592
| N.H. | 1914
|
Check Treatment

As the plaintiff does not occupy a fiduciary position entitling him for his protection to the prospective decision of questions that may arise under the will, and as the defendant, whom the plaintiff claims does occupy such a position, does not desire, but objects to, their present determination by way of advice to him, there is no ground upon which the court may lawfully advise the parties. Glover v. Baker, 76 N.H. 393; Day v. Washburn, 76 N.H. 203; Harvey v. Harvey, 73 N.H. 106; Drake v. True,72 N.H. 322; Bailey v. McIntire, 71 N.H. 329; Ellis v. Aldrich,70 N.H. 219, 222; Gafney v. Kenison, 64 N.H. 354; Greeley v. Nashua,62 N.H. 166, 167; Opinion of the Justices, 62 N.H. 706; P. S., c. 207, s. 8.

Exception overruled.

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

Case Details

Case Name: Ross v. Church
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Feb 3, 1914
Citation: 77 N.H. 592
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.