Locke v. Williams
Mississippi Supreme Court
EhhoR, to the Court of Probates of Rankin county. Hon. James Einlay, judge. The heirs and distributees of Daniel Williams, deceased, filed their petition in the court below, for distribution of his estate. The plaintiffs in error also filed their petition, asking to be made parties to said proceeding; and alleging that they had purchased the interest of one of said distributees, and praying that his share in the estate might descend to them.
Read the full summary
EhhoR, to the Court of Probates of Rankin county. Hon. James Einlay, judge. The heirs and distributees of Daniel Williams, deceased, filed their petition in the court below, for distribution of his estate. The plaintiffs in error also filed their petition, asking to be made parties to said proceeding; and alleging that they had purchased the interest of one of said distributees, and praying that his share in the estate might descend to them. The validity of this assignment was denied by the representatives of the alleged assignor, who was dead. Upon a final hearing, the court dismissed the…
1Opinion of the CourtHarris, J.
The only point presented by the record in this case is, whether the Probate Court, on the petition of the assignee of a distributee, has power to investigate and decide on the validity of the assignee’s title to a distributive share in the estate of David Williams, deceased.
This is no longer an open question in this court. It is settled, that the Probate Court has no such power. See cases of McCoy v. Rhodes, 7 S. & M. 296; Bennett v. Strong, 26 Miss. R. 116; Philips v. McLaughlin, Ib. 597; Wildey v. Bonney, 28 Miss. R. *188710; and the late ease of Hill v. Hardy & Williams, Opinion Book, 42.
Th…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burnett v. StrongMississippi Supreme Court · 1853
- Wildy v. BonneyMississippi Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by1 opinion
- Estate of SipchenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923