Barrow v. Barrow

1 S. & M. 101
CourtMississippi Chancery Courts
DecidedJanuary 15, 1844
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 S. & M. 101 (Barrow v. Barrow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Chancery Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barrow v. Barrow, 1 S. & M. 101 (Mich. Super. Ct. 1844).

Opinion

Chancellor.

This was a bill filed by the distributees of William Barrow, deceased, against Samuel Barrow, administrator. It is alleged in the bill, that the defendant received into his possession a large amount of the property of the intestate, and left this country with that property in possession, and fled to Texas.

The complainants state specifically, and prove, what property he took away with him, and exhibit its value ; they also state and prove that all the debts of their ancestor were paid and discharged, and that no administration on the estate now exists. Thus removing a technical objection, that might otherwise have been urged against and defeated the-bill; that is, that an administrator de bonis non, should have qualified, and exhibited the bill in his own name as complainant, to subject the defendant’s property for the benefit of creditors, and ascertain distinctly the amount of indebtedness of the first administrator.

Freed from this objection, by its own allegations, which by the pro confesso and proof are fully established, the bill is a mere foreign creditor’s attaching bill, to subject lands of the defendant out of this State, in the possession of defendants within the State, to the indebtedness of non-resident complainants.

A decree is therefore ordered, to be framed according to the statute.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Taylor v. Lowenstein. & Bro.
50 Miss. 278 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 S. & M. 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrow-v-barrow-misschanceryct-1844.