Mobberly v. Johnson's ex'r
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 57—EQUITY APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The bond executed by the appellee as administrator with the will annexed of J. I. Johnson is not the bond required by the statute. (9 Dana, 102; Rutherford’s heirs v. Clark, 4 Bush, 32; 3 S. & M., 715 ; 8 Serg., p. 54; 2 lb., 642.) 2. No title passed to appellant, because appellee describes himself as executor, when he was in fact administrator with the will annexed of the decedent.
Read the full summary
Case 57—EQUITY APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The bond executed by the appellee as administrator with the will annexed of J. I. Johnson is not the bond required by the statute. (9 Dana, 102; Rutherford’s heirs v. Clark, 4 Bush, 32; 3 S. & M., 715 ; 8 Serg., p. 54; 2 lb., 642.) 2. No title passed to appellant, because appellee describes himself as executor, when he was in fact administrator with the will annexed of the decedent. X. The Daviess county court had jurisdiction to appoint appellee as administrator with the will annexed. (Gen. Stat., chap. 39, p. 442;, Peebles v. Watts’…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HINES
delivered the opinion of the court.
J. I. Johnson died, leaving a will, in which certain persons were designated as executors, and directed to sell the real estate owned by the testator at his death. The persons named in the will having failed to qualify as executors, appellee, on the application of all the heirs, was appointed administrator with the will annexed, and, having qualified ■and executed bond, sold to appellant a portion of the real ■estate, for which he executed a deed, denominating himself ■executor. After some payments were made the administrator with the will annexed…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hatch v. FergusonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1895
- Power v. LenoirMontana Supreme Court · 1899
- Bull v. BalNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1913
- Johnson v. PettySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929