Legal Opinion

Strode v. Beall

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 15, 1904Published

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. Franklin Ferriss, Judge. (1) Paragraph 14 of the testator’s will, regarding advancements, can have no reference to the indebtedness of respondent on the notes in suit, (a) An advancement, in administration law, is a gift from a parent to a child, by anticipation of the whole or a part of what such child would inherit upon the death of the parent intestate. Bouvier’s Law Diet.; 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. (2 Ed.), 760; 2 "Woerner Admin.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. Franklin Ferriss, Judge. (1) Paragraph 14 of the testator’s will, regarding advancements, can have no reference to the indebtedness of respondent on the notes in suit, (a) An advancement, in administration law, is a gift from a parent to a child, by anticipation of the whole or a part of what such child would inherit upon the death of the parent intestate. Bouvier’s Law Diet.; 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. (2 Ed.), 760; 2 "Woerner Admin. (2 Ed.), sec. 552; Thornton Gifts and Advancements, sec. 525-42. (b) The term advancement is understood to mean…

1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.

(after stating the facts as above).

1. Where a parent takes a promissory note, payable to himself, from his child, his declarations at the time of the transaction, or subsequent thereto, are admissible for the purpose of showing that the note was taken as a mere receipt or memorandum of an advancement. Brook v. Latimer, 44 Kan. 431; Peabody v. Peabody, 59 Ind. 556; Nelson v. Nelson, 90 Mo. 460; McDearman v. Hodnett, 83 Va. 281.

In Kirby’s Appeal, 109 Pa. St. 41, it is said: “Advancement is a question of intention, and the signing of a statement that a certain sum of money due the decedent was…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Nelson v. NelsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
  2. Brook v. LatimerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
  3. Gunn v. ThrustonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
  4. Peabody v. PeabodyIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
  5. McDearman v. HodnettSupreme Court of Virginia · 1887

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API