Middleton's Adm'r v. Maull's Adm'r
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Orphans’ Court of Lowndes. This was a proceeding before the Orphans’ Court for a final settlement of the administration of James Maul], deceased, on the estate of James P. Larkins. It appeared that Maull, the administrator, had reported the estate of his intestate insolvent, and that on the 8th of July 1844, after due notice, a decree was rendered declaring said estate insolvent.
Read the full summary
Error to the Orphans’ Court of Lowndes. This was a proceeding before the Orphans’ Court for a final settlement of the administration of James Maul], deceased, on the estate of James P. Larkins. It appeared that Maull, the administrator, had reported the estate of his intestate insolvent, and that on the 8th of July 1844, after due notice, a decree was rendered declaring said estate insolvent. A final settlement was ordered to be made on the 14th day of April 1845. On the day appointed, David H. Middleton, Benjamin Mock and other creditors of the said James P. Larkins appeared and filed…
1ConcurrenceDargan, J.
I cannot concur in the opinion of the court. I think it too clear to admit of argument, that a decree of insolvency, rendered in accordance with the provisions of the act of 1843, is final and conclusive on all the creditors, and neither they nor any one else can be permitted again to litigate that question. The fact of insolvency by the decree be-cómes res adjudicata, and is equally as conclusive on all parties as any other sentence or judgment pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction.
The only question, therefore, is, whether any creditor can be permitted (if he has failed to file his…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hollinger v. HollySupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Phelan v. PhelanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848