Hazard v. Purdom
Supreme Court of Alabama
In this case a question is decided as to the pleading of an immaterial fact; and the effect of taking issue thereon. The action was assumpsit, and was brought to recover a sum of money of Hazard, who was charged in the declaration as the administrator, de bonis non, of T. Livingston.
Read the full summary
In this case a question is decided as to the pleading of an immaterial fact; and the effect of taking issue thereon. The action was assumpsit, and was brought to recover a sum of money of Hazard, who was charged in the declaration as the administrator, de bonis non, of T. Livingston. Hazard was shown to have been the successor of Patsey J. Livingston, administratrix, who was the successor of John S. Livingston, the executor of said T. Livingston, the administration having become vacant by the death of said executor, and again by that of said administratrix. The declaration contained the…
1Opinion of the CourtSaffold, C. J.
In the disposition of this case, it will be sufficient, to notice only the third assignment of error.
According to "my view of the record, issue was tendered, and taken, on the fact alleged, as a defence, that, according to the statute of non-claim, this demand was not presented to this defendant, within eighteen months after administration granted to him, or after his publication to creditors, to present their claims.
The law appears to be settled, that this statute, being intended to expedite the settlement of estates, and protect the heirs and distributees, as well as the executor or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Simonton v. WinterSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
3Cited by7 opinions
- Mudge v. TreatSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- George v. Cahawba & Marion Rail RoadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Hyer v. VaughnSupreme Court of Florida · 1882
- Watson v. BrazealSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Lambeth v. GarberSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.