Stein v. Weidman's Administrator
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. A distributee of an estate is not a party to the action, nor a person for whose immediate, benefit it is defended, within the meaning of the new practice act. While the administration is open, the administrator acts for the creditors, as well as the distributees.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. A distributee of an estate is not a party to the action, nor a person for whose immediate, benefit it is defended, within the meaning of the new practice act. While the administration is open, the administrator acts for the creditors, as well as the distributees. If a distributee is incompetent, so is a creditor. ' The competency of the witness, cannot be made to depend upon the solvency or insolvency of the estate; for it may be impossible, when the witness is offered, to know whether the estate will…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
The only question in this case is in relation to the admissibility of the witness, Elizabeth Scholl, the wife of the defendant, and former widow of Weidman, the intestate. Schell, the administrator of the estate of Adam Weidman, is sued by Stein for work and labor done by Stein for said Weidman ; or, rather, Stein exhibited his demand against the estate of Weidman, for allowance in the Probate Court, for $788, on which was a credit of. $500.
*19This demand was disallowed, all except the sum of $88, which last sum was allowed in favor of Stein, against the estate of Weidman. From this judgment,…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Graves v. GravesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1902
- Sherwood's Administrator v. HillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- Barclay v. Globe Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Conley v. JohnsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920
- Krum v. BeardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.