Case ID: nh_67/html/0334-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n      \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jones & a. v. Martin, Adm’r.
    
    A petition for leave to appeal from the decision of a commissioner upon an insolvent estate, on the ground of accident and mistake, cannot he sustained.
    Petition, for leave to appeal from the disallowance of the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant’s intestate and from the acceptance of liis report by the judge of probate. The plaintiffs offer to prove that the commissioner was appointed Juno 14,1887, and by his commission he was to make 1ns report within six ■ months; that he filed his report May 18, 1891; that by accident and mistake the plaintiffs were prevented from taking an appeal therefrom until September 18, 1891, when they filed an appeal. This appeal was dismissed because it was not seasonably taken. The court also dismissed the petition, subject to exception, ruling that it had no power to grant the relief desired.
    
      Leach if Stevens, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Harry Gr. Sargent, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

In Hilton v. Wiggin, 46 N. H. 120, it was held, under s. 7, c. 170, R. S., which is practically identical with the statute now in force (Gr. L., c. 207, s. 7), that the law empowering the court to grant leave to appeal from the decree of the probate court, when such appeal has been prevented by mistake, accident, or misfortune, does not apply to the decisions of commissioners upon insolvent estates. Upon the authority of that case the plaintiffs’ exception must be overruled. Parsons v. Parsons, post. The fact that the commissioner’s report was not returned until long after the time limited in his commission, did not have the effect of changing the method of settling the estate. The estate is still to be settled according to the insolvent course.

Whethe'r a bill in equity can be maintained under the statute (G. L., c. 198, s. 22) upon the facts of this case, is a question we have not considered. It is not expedient to consider this petition as a bill in equity, or to consider the question whether, if a bill can be maintained, it can be added to the petition by an amendment.

Exceptions overruled.

Allen, J., did not sit: the others concurred. 
      
      See foot-note on page 80.