State ex rel. Hunter v. Maulsby
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to JYew Madrid Circuit Court. I. This is not a “ demand against an estate,” but a demand in favor of an estate; and hence, this cause does not fall within the words of Sess. Acts, 1865-6, p. 85. The Circuit Court based its decision upon Dodson vs.. Scroggs, 47 Mo., 285, but that case does not go so far. II. The judgment should have been against the administrator as such. (Ranney vs. Thomas, 45 Mo., 111.)
1Opinion of the CourtVories, Judge
This action was brought in-the New Madrid Circuit Court on the bond of defendant, Maulsby, as administrator of the estate of Robert B. Hill, deceased, and the other defendants as his sureties thereon.
There is no question raised in the record of the case, as to the sufficiency of the petition, provided the court had jurisdiction.
The defendants appeared and filed their motion in the court below to dismiss the suit for the reason, that the Circuit Court of New Madrid County had no jurisdiction of the cause. The motion is as follows :
“ Defendants move the court to dismiss this cause for the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dodson v. ScroggsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Ranney v. ThomasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
3Cited by6 opinions
- Proctor v. Missouri, Kansas & Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- State ex rel. Longdon v. ShelbySupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Ross v. AllemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Burlington Northern, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1977
- State ex rel. Shinn v. StaffordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.