in procuring the execution of a will is recognized in this jurisdiction as a distinct “Fraud 86 N.H. may consist in the intentional cause.” Knox v. Perkins, 66, 68 (1932). “‘Fraud concealment of a material fact as well as in a false statement of a p. 69 (quoting Id., fact.’” 79 N.H. in will cases, the deception must be such Benoit v. Perkins, 11, 15 (1918). “Obviously as to induce the testator to make some disposition of his property that he would not otherwise have In the court affirmed allowance of a will by which the testator left his Id. Knox, made.” estate to his widow, finding that the testator of [her] former marriages, or if he did “either knew not know, would have made the same disposal of his property after learning the Id. facts.” Revocation Upon discovery of a subsequently executed will, which expressly or impliedly revokes an allowed will, the party offering the new will should seek re-examination of the prior one. In re 118 N.H. 180, 185 (1978). If the six-month statute of limitations of RSA 552:7 Estate of Lund, bars re-examination, the equitable power of the court might be a court to set aside invoked. “For its approval of a will [on equitable grounds] there must such as exist ‘some substantial ground, fraud, accident, or mistake, which renders it against conscience to execute the decree they attack, and of which they were prevented from availing themselves by fraud, accident, or mistake, unmixed with any fraud or negligence on their p. 185 (quoting 73 Id., Knight v. Hollings, part.’” N.H. 495, 502 (1906)). Mistake to the prevailing view, if the testator knew and approved the contents of his “[A]ccording will, it is immaterial that he mistook the legal effect of the language used or that he acted upon the mistaken advice of counsel, provided that advice in an honest belief that it was ‘was given 93 N.H. 113, 115 (1944) (quoting 289 Mo. 209, Leonard v. Stanton, Elam v. Phariss, sound.’”
“Fraud in procuring the execution of a will is recognized in this jurisdiction as a distinct cause.” Knox v. Perkins, 86 N.H. 66, 68 (1932). “‘Fraud may consist in the intentional concealment of a material fact as well as in a false statement of a fact.’” Id., p. 69 (quoting Benoit v. Perkins, 79 N.H. 11, 15 (1918). “Obviously in will cases, the deception must be such as to induce the testator to make some disposition of his property that he would not otherwise have made.” Id. In Knox, the court affirmed allowance of a will by which the testator left his estate to his widow, finding that the testator “either knew of [her] former marriages, or if he did not know, would have made the same disposal of his property after learning the facts.” Id. Revocation Upon discovery of a subsequently executed will, which expressly or impliedly revokes an allowed will, the party offering the new will should seek re-examination of the prior one. In re Estate of Lund, 118 N.H. 180, 185 (1978). If the six-month statute of limitations of RSA 552:7 bars re-examination, the equitable power of the court might be invoked. “For a court to set aside its approval of a will [on equitable grounds] there must exist ‘some substantial ground, such as fraud, accident, or mistake, which renders it against conscience to execute the decree they attack, and of which they were prevented from availing themselves by fraud, accident, or mistake, unmixed with any fraud or negligence on their part.’” Id., p. 185 (quoting Knight v. Hollings, 73 N.H. 495, 502 (1906)). Mistake “[A]ccording to the prevailing view, if the testator knew and approved the contents of his will, it is immaterial that he mistook the legal effect of the language used or that he acted upon the mistaken advice of counsel, provided that advice ‘was given in an honest belief that it was sound.’” Leonard v. Stanton, 93 N.H. 113, 115 (1944) (quoting Elam v. Phariss, 289 Mo. 209,