Hudson v. Strickland
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appical from the Chancery Court of Marshall County. Hon. A. B. Fly, Chancellor. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. 1. A guardian’s commissions, under the Constitution and laws of the State, could only be allowed and fixed in amount formerly by the Probate Court, and, since the adoption of the present Constitution, by the Chancery Coui’t; and this item of $2,300 was never allowed by either tribunal. Bev.
Read the full summary
Appical from the Chancery Court of Marshall County. Hon. A. B. Fly, Chancellor. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. 1. A guardian’s commissions, under the Constitution and laws of the State, could only be allowed and fixed in amount formerly by the Probate Court, and, since the adoption of the present Constitution, by the Chancery Coui’t; and this item of $2,300 was never allowed by either tribunal. Bev. Code 1857, p. 462, sect. 148; Code 1871, sect. 1218; Ratliff v. Davis, 9 Geo. 110-112. In the case of Ratliff v. Davis, the court say. “he cannot claim an allowance [discussing…
1Opinion of the CourtChalmers, C. J.
This litigation commenced in 1866, and will be found reported in 52 Miss. 575.
It was a bill brought by Mrs. Hudson, a former ward of W. M. Strickland, seeking to reopen a final settlement made by her said guardian in the Probate Court of Marshall County in 1861, and to vacate and cancel certain deeds of partition executed between herself and her guardian.
The prayer of the bill was granted by this court in so far as it sought a cancellation of the deeds of partition, and the case was remanded for the purpose of making a new division of the property and of taking and stating an account between…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ratliff v. DavisMississippi Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by2 opinions
- Baird v. McNamaraMississippi Supreme Court · 1900
- Jones v. GraphiaCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2012