Langston v. Canterbury
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — Eon. W. N. Evans, Judge. (1)- “Upon every settlement, the executor or administrator shall show that every claim for which disbursements have been made has been allowed by the court, according to law. ’ ’ Sec. 224, R. S. 1899. Under the above statute, as amended, the respondent was not entitled to credit for the' $2,230.87, covering amount paid for the two notes which were never allowed by the probate court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — Eon. W. N. Evans, Judge. (1)- “Upon every settlement, the executor or administrator shall show that every claim for which disbursements have been made has been allowed by the court, according to law. ’ ’ Sec. 224, R. S. 1899. Under the above statute, as amended, the respondent was not entitled to credit for the' $2,230.87, covering amount paid for the two notes which were never allowed by the probate court. What is the effect of the repeal of the words, “or shall produce such proof of the demand as would enable the claimant to recover in a suit at law?” We…
1Opinion of the CourtValliant, J.
Respondent Canterbury was the administrator of the estate of Thomas Johnson deceased. . Exceptions to his final settlement were filed by appellant who is the administrator de bonis non. The cause was carried by appeal to the circuit court where a final judgment was rendered showing a balance due the former administrator of $12.37. In order to arrive at that balance the court allowed the admimstrator credit for $2,230.87 paid by him on two notes executed by the intestate in his lifetime but which had never been allowed by the probate court; also $6,933.25 paid by Mm to complete a building…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McPike v. McPikeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Estate of Merritt v. MerrittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Hall v. Farmers & Merchants' BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Jacobs v. JacobsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Hutchinson v. ShelleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Dean v. DauesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- Protection Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1974
- Doke v. Benton County Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Clapper v. ChandlerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1966
- Picotte v. MillsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1918
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.