In re Estate of Dair
Hamilton County Probate Court
J. A. Jordan alleges, that he is the administrator de bonis non of the estate of James Dair, deceased; that on the 19th day of April, 1875, George W. Keen was duly appointed and qualified as the administrator of the estate of the said James Dair, deceased, and acted as such until the 12th day of May, 1885, when he resigned; that the said Keen is indebted to the estate of the said James.
Read the full summary
J. A. Jordan alleges, that he is the administrator de bonis non of the estate of James Dair, deceased; that on the 19th day of April, 1875, George W. Keen was duly appointed and qualified as the administrator of the estate of the said James Dair, deceased, and acted as such until the 12th day of May, 1885, when he resigned; that the said Keen is indebted to the estate of the said James. Dair in the sum of Twenty-five thousand dollars; and that the said George W. Keen, as administrator of the estate of James Dair, has failed, neglected and refused to charge himself as such, with said…
1Opinion of the CourtGoebel, J.
For the purpose of determining the questions pre-. sentecl it is admitted that if an account were stated of the partnership affairs there would be due from George W. Keen to the estate of James Dair, a certain amount.
But it is maintained by Keen,
First. That the amount that the Court may find to be due, would not be such a debt as the statute contemplates is chargeable to an administrator under section 6069 of the Revised Statutes.
Second. If it is a debt within the meaning of section 6069, it is not chargeable against Keen as administrator, if Keen as administrator, was and ever since…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Baucus v. . StoverNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Soverhill v. . SuydamNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Hall v. PrattOhio Supreme Court · 1831