Court Opinion

ID: 9755150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:28:12.480712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:03.702226
License: Public Domain

On rehearing. After the foregoing opinion was filed, the defendant’s motion for rehearing was granted.
*124April 27, 1956.
Wyman, Starr, Booth, Wadleigh & Langdell and Charles J. Dunn {Mr. Dunn orally), opposed.
Blandin, J.
The motion for rehearing alleges that all of the securities received by the life tenant as stock dividends, excepting those of a single corporation, were transferred during the life tenant’s lifetime, but at the defendant’s request, to his name as guardian of the life tenant, in reliance upon the advice of counsel based upon Holbrook v. Holbrook, 74 N. H. 201, and upon the understanding that the dividends represented earnings accrued to the corporations during the life tenancy. The defendant accordingly argues that unless the order of this court is modified it will be retroactive so as to affect these transfers, contrary to the statement made in the opinion.
Without presuming to pass upon the allegations of fact, but taking them as true for purposes of the motion, we conclude that the transactions alleged were not such as to call for modification of the order. The rights of the life tenant in the dividends vested if at all before the securities were placed in the guardian’s name. Her rights were no greater before the transfer than after, and no agreements between the guardian and the companies, to which the plaintiff was not a party could bind the plaintiff. No claim is made that he was notified of the transfers when they were made. His rights were unaffected by what was done. It follows that the transfers made in reliance on the rule in the Holbrook case did not change in any way the respective interests of the parties. Consequently if the facts were found to be as alleged, no change in the order would be warranted.

Former result affirmed.

All concurred.