Campbell v. Conner

42 Ala. 131
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 15, 1868·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

Campbell v. Conner, 42 Ala. 131 (Ala. 1868).

42 Ala. 131 (Campbell v. Conner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hale v. Kinnaird
76 So. 954 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)