Alexander v. Chapman
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Dallas. ■Heard before the Hon. William H. Tayloe. The facts of the case -are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction rendered on the merits of a cause is final and conclusive of the matter involved. — Tanlcersley v. Pettis, 71 Ala. .179, 186; Strong v. Moog, 12 Ala. 460. This principle is applicable to a settlement by an administrator of his accounts in the probate court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Dallas. ■Heard before the Hon. William H. Tayloe. The facts of the case -are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction rendered on the merits of a cause is final and conclusive of the matter involved. — Tanlcersley v. Pettis, 71 Ala. .179, 186; Strong v. Moog, 12 Ala. 460. This principle is applicable to a settlement by an administrator of his accounts in the probate court. The case of Waring v. Leíais, 53 ilia. 615, is directly in point. Also see Hutton v. Williams, 60 Ala. 137; Gamble v. Jordan, 54 Ala. 432.
1Opinion of the Court
McCLELLAN, O. J.
The bill in this case was filed by Susan J. Chapman and others against John D. Alexander and others. The object of the bill and its prayer is to remove -the administration of the-estate of Joseph M. Alexander, deceased, into the chancery court, and to *467‘have an accounting there'by the executor and a final settlement of the estate. John D. and Dewit 0. Alexander, two of the three persons nominated as executors by the will of Joseph M. Alexander duly probated the same and qualified as such executors, but Dewit O', took no active part in the administration, and soon after died,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rust v. Electric Lighting Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1899