Kidd v. Bates
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appear, from Elmore Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. J. R. Dowdele. The facts are fully and clearly stated in the opinion. .1. Where an executor is notoriously unfit, lias committed a devastavit, or has been guilty of any other act which would warrant his removal, equity will interpose, enjoin him from further acting, and in a proper case appoint a receiver. — Taylor r. Allen, 2 Atk. 213; Uttcrson v. Mair, 2 Yes.
Read the full summary
Appear, from Elmore Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. J. R. Dowdele. The facts are fully and clearly stated in the opinion. .1. Where an executor is notoriously unfit, lias committed a devastavit, or has been guilty of any other act which would warrant his removal, equity will interpose, enjoin him from further acting, and in a proper case appoint a receiver. — Taylor r. Allen, 2 Atk. 213; Uttcrson v. Mair, 2 Yes. Jr. 97; Gkuldon v. Stoneman, 1 Madd. 113; Scott v. Hechor, 1 Price 317; Ex parte Walker, 25 Ala. 81; J)u val v. Marshall, 30 Ark. 230; Sheehan v. Kennelly, 32 Ga. 115; Hill v.…
1Opinion of the CourtHaralson, J.
— The bill AAras filed in Elmore chancery court, on the 25th March, 1898, by Louisa Y. Kidd as an executrix of the last will of IT. B. Tulane, against Louis A. Bates, an executor of said IT. B. Tulane, and against the legatees and heirs of said deceased. The complainant and the defendant, Bates, it appears, having been named as such by the Avill of said Tulane, had been duly appointed and are the executrix and executor of the will of said testator. Each in qualifying entered into a separate bond in the sum of $400,000.
It also appears, that the complainant interposed objections to the issuance…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barnard v. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
3Cited by1 opinion
- Willinger v. German Bk. of Balto.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1918