Campbell v. Conner
This text of 42 Ala. 131 (Campbell v. Conner) 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.
Opinion
A. J. WALKER, C. J.
The jurisdiction of the chancery court was concurrent with that of the probate court in the [133]*133settlement of a guardianship, and the bill in this ease having been filed before the commencement of any proceedings for the settlement of the guardianship in the probate court, it was not necessary to allege any special equity to sustain the chancery jurisdiction. — Park v. Park, 36 Ala. 133; Moore v. Leaner, 33 Ala. 237.
The deceased ward having- died in infancy without debts, his interest could be represented in chancery by the distributees of his estate without an administration.— Carter v. Owens, in manuscript; Anderson v. Anderson, 37 Ala. 683 ; Marshall v. Crow, 29 Ala. 279; Vanderver v. Alston, 16 Ala. 494; Miller v. Eatman, 11 Ala. 609 ; Bethea v. McCall, 5 Ala. 308.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
42 Ala. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-conner-ala-1868.