Amoskeag Trust Co. v. Preston

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Estate of Leonard

    514 A.2d 822 (N.H. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    " A dispute over the inclusion of the adopted children as "lineal descendants" of their natural father led the adopted children to file the petition for instructions, which resulted in the decree in their favor. On appeal, the testatrix's son claims that the term "lineal descendants" has a commonly understood meaning, see Amoskeag Trust Co. v. Preston, 107 N.H. 330, 331-33, 222 A.2d 158, 159-60 (1966), and that no ambiguity appears that would justify taking extrinsic evidence to determine the intended scope of the term. See Indian Head Nat'l Bank v. Brown, 123 N.H. 87, 91, 445 A.2d 1056, 1058 (1983).

  2. Cagan's, Inc. v. N.H. Dept. of Rev. Admin

    512 A.2d 411 (N.H. 1986)   Cited 4 times

    No attempt has been made to change the term "through error" in the face of our interpretation of it and, therefore, we assume that this interpretation met with the legislature's approval. See Amoskeag Trust Co. v. Preston, 107 N.H. 330, 333, 222 A.2d 158, 161 (1966). Accordingly, we construe RSA 78-A:10 to permit an operator to receive a refund for taxes erroneously or illegally collected or computed, within three years from the date the return was due.

  3. In re Estate of Ruel

    465 A.2d 508 (N.H. 1983)

    They further claim that they qualify to take under this statute because they are not named or referred to in their grandmother's will. Specifically, they contend that the clause in the will excluding Sadie M. Ruel's issue does not refer to them because, as natural children of an adopted daughter, they are not "issue" of the deceased. They find support for this proposition in this court's exclusion of adopted children from the definition of "issue" in Amoskeag Trust Co. v. Preston, 107 N.H. 330, 331, 222 A.2d 158, 159 (1966). See RSA 21:20 (issue).

  4. Tafel Estate

    296 A.2d 797 (Pa. 1972)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that its reversal of the common law presumption "does not conflict with any . . . legislation" relating to succession

    However, this view has been adopted in many jurisdictions.Connecticut Bank and Trust Company v. Hills, 157 Conn. 375, 254 A.2d 453 (1969); Orme v. Northern Trust Company, 25 Ill.2d 151, 183 N.E.2d 505 (1962); Baker v. Giffrow, 257 Iowa 929, 135 N.W.2d 629 (1965); Poertner v. Burkdoll, 201 Kan. 41, 439 P.2d 393 (1968); Minary v. Citizens Fidelity Bank Trust Company, 419 S.W.2d 340 (Ky. 1967); Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Silsbee, 159 Me. 6, 187 A.2d 396 (1963); In re Graham Estate, 379 Mich. 224, 150 N.W.2d 816 (1967); Amoskeag Trust Company v. Preston, 107 N.H. 330, 222 A.2d 158 (1966); Wachovia Bank and Trust Company v. Andrews, 264 N.C. 531, 142 S.E.2d 182 (1965); National City Bank of Cleveland v. Mitchell, 13 Ohio App.2d 141, 234 N.E.2d 916 (Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County, 1968); Weitzel v. Weitzel, 16 Ohio Misc. 105, 239 N.E.2d 263 (Probate Court of Cuyahoga County, 1968); Mealy v. First National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, 445 P.2d 795 (Okla. 1968); Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company v. Hooker, 101 R.I. 12, 219 A.2d 772 (1966), 101 R.I. 769, 222 A.2d 779 (1966); Decker v. Elliott, 425 S.W.2d 880 (Tex. Court of Civil Appeals, 1968); Security National Bank Trust Co. v. Willim, 151 W. Va. 429, 153 S.E.2d 114 (1967).Johns v. Cobb, 402 F.2d 636 (C.A. D.C. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1087 (1969); Riggs Nat. Bank v. Summerlin, 300 F. Supp. 1000 (D.C. 1969); In re Heard's Estate, 49 C. 2d 514, 319 P.2d 637 (1957); In re Stanford's Estate, 49 C. 2d 120, 315 P.2d 681 (1957); Wilson v. Johnson, 389 S.W.2d 634 (Ky. 1965); Breckinridge v. Skillman's Trustee,