Clopton v. Haughton
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Monroe County. Hon. L. Haughton, Chancellor. The revivor was under the original bill, the demurrer was to the bill as amended, and while the revivor could not have been made on the latter, the executor’s administrator against whom the former was revived is entitled to the benefit of its defects. The revivor should have been against the successor in the administration, not against the executor’s personal representative.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Monroe County. Hon. L. Haughton, Chancellor. The revivor was under the original bill, the demurrer was to the bill as amended, and while the revivor could not have been made on the latter, the executor’s administrator against whom the former was revived is entitled to the benefit of its defects. The revivor should have been against the successor in the administration, not against the executor’s personal representative. The original bill is neither for an account under § 1120 of the Code, nor to establish the executor’s individual liability under § 976, and is…
1Opinion of the CourtChalmers, J.
Sundiy creditors of James H. Haughton, deceased, having reduced their demands to judgments against W. H. Clopton, his executor, filed this bill in the Chancery Court of Monroe County, representing that said executor, though he had been appointed and acting as such for more than ten years, and had collected, and then held in his hands, assets and money of the estate, failed and refused to pay off the debts; that he had mingled the money of the estate with his own, and failed to make a final or even partial settlement of his accounts with the court. The prayer was that he be *789cited to show cause…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hunt v. PotterMississippi Supreme Court · 1880