Burgess v. Burgess

Supreme Court of Alabama

Burgess v. Burgess

79 So. 193, 201 Ala. 631, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 190

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 30, 1918

Docket8 Div. 71.

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 79 So. 193 (Burgess v. Burgess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burgess v. Burgess, 79 So. 193, 201 Ala. 631, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 190 (Ala. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

*632 THOMAS, J.

A phase of this case was before the court in Burgess v. Burgess, 199 Ala. 552, 75 South. 5.

[1] The statute is mandatory as to the manner of presenting claims against estates of decedents. The register’s statement of the account with the administrator was pursuant to the former judgment here on decree of the chancellor. He was not authorized to allow claims against said estates not presented and proven as required by the statutes, as those statutes have been recently construed by this court. Code 1907, § 2589; Traweek v. Hagler, 199 Ala. 664, 75 South. 152; Code, § 2590; Brannan v. Sherry, 195 Ala. 272, 71 South. 106; Kennedy v. Lyle, 200 Ala. 604, 76 South. 962.

The reason for the statutes of nonclaims was to prevent the payment of unjust, unconscionable, or fraudulent claims that may be made against estates by personal representatives and other creditors, without giving notice to the parties in interest and affording them the opportunity to resist the demands. Appellants submit that, if they are mistaken as to the decree of confirmation of the register’s report’s not being in accordance with the former opinion in Burgess v. Burgess, supra, this court should reconsider or modify the former decision. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. W. U. Telegraph Co., 195 Ala. 124, 126, 71 South. 118, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 696; Owen v. Bankhead, 82 Ala. 399, 3 South. 97; McQueen v. Whetstone, 127 Ala. 417, 30 South. 548. We are unwilling to depart from that decision, and there is no occasion to do so. The tendency of the evidence is to show that the justice of the case was met in the allowance on the former appeal of the two sums, $500 and $700. No doubt, from the evidence, in-testates intended said sums to be compensation to appellant for expenditures made and services rendered, and to be made and rendered, intestates by appellant.

[2] Aside from the foregoing, the finding of the register had the effect of a jury’s verdict. Bidwell v. Johnson, 195 Ala. 547, 70 South. 685.

' The decree of the circuit court, in equity, is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and MAYFIELD and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.

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

*632 THOMAS, J.

A phase of this case was before the court in Burgess v. Burgess, 199 Ala. 552, 75 South. 5.

[1] The statute is mandatory as to the manner of presenting claims against estates of decedents. The register’s statement of the account with the administrator was pursuant to the former judgment here on decree of the chancellor. He was not authorized to allow claims against said estates not presented and proven as required by the statutes, as those statutes have been recently construed by this court. Code 1907, § 2589; Traweek v. Hagler, 199 Ala. 664, 75 South. 152; Code, § 2590; Brannan v. Sherry, 195 Ala. 272, 71 South. 106; Kennedy v. Lyle, 200 Ala. 604, 76 South. 962.

The reason for the statutes of nonclaims was to prevent the payment of unjust, unconscionable, or fraudulent claims that may be made against estates by personal representatives and other creditors, without giving notice to the parties in interest and affording them the opportunity to resist the demands. Appellants submit that, if they are mistaken as to the decree of confirmation of the register’s report’s not being in accordance with the former opinion in Burgess v. Burgess, supra, this court should reconsider or modify the former decision. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. W. U. Telegraph Co., 195 Ala. 124, 126, 71 South. 118, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 696; Owen v. Bankhead, 82 Ala. 399, 3 South. 97; McQueen v. Whetstone, 127 Ala. 417, 30 South. 548. We are unwilling to depart from that decision, and there is no occasion to do so. The tendency of the evidence is to show that the justice of the case was met in the allowance on the former appeal of the two sums, $500 and $700. No doubt, from the evidence, in-testates intended said sums to be compensation to appellant for expenditures made and services rendered, and to be made and rendered, intestates by appellant.

[2] Aside from the foregoing, the finding of the register had the effect of a jury’s verdict. Bidwell v. Johnson, 195 Ala. 547, 70 South. 685.

' The decree of the circuit court, in equity, is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and MAYFIELD and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 So. 193, 201 Ala. 631, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-burgess-ala-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack