Estate of Ferguson v. Gentry
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court. — Hon. George F. Longan, Judge. The Act of 1895, now section 111, Revised Statutes 1899, has no application in this case. It is only intended to confer the right to the special property and the allowance mentioned, upon a man who was already entitled to curtesy in his wife’s estate.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court. — Hon. George F. Longan, Judge. The Act of 1895, now section 111, Revised Statutes 1899, has no application in this case. It is only intended to confer the right to the special property and the allowance mentioned, upon a man who was already entitled to curtesy in his wife’s estate. As there were no children born to the marriage of Mr. Ferguson and Ruby Gentry, he was not entitled to curtesy, and therefore was not entitled to the other allowance and prop>erty, the right of which depended upon his right to curtesy. The terms used in this statute are to be…
1Opinion of the CourtValliant, P. J.
The facts of this ease are the same as those in Wilson J. Ferguson v. Bettie H. Gentry, supra, page 189, except that that was a suit for partition of the real estate and this concerns the final settlement and distribution of the personal estate of the intestate. . -
On final settlement in the probate court the surviving husband of the intestate was adjudged entitled to one-half the personal property belonging .to the wife at the time of her death under the terms of the Act of March 2, 1895, now section 2988,. Revised Statutes 1890, and also to the articles and property called for by section…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Perry v. StrawbridgeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Holder v. Elms Hotel Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- Booth v. ScottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- Ellis v. State Road CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1925
- Marshall v. FooteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.