Clack's Heirs v. Clack's Adm'rs

Supreme Court of Alabama

Clack's Heirs v. Clack's Adm'rs

20 Ala. 461

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1852

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 20 Ala. 461 (Clack's Heirs v. Clack's Adm'rs) 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

Clack's Heirs v. Clack's Adm'rs, 20 Ala. 461 (Ala. 1852).

Pincite

Opinion

PHELAN, J.

It does not appear by the record, that any such affidavits as those to which the second and third assignments relate were filed by the administrator, nor is it necessary that it should. If the administrator had neglected, or refused to make the oath, in regard to the use of the money of the estate, or to file “a list of the heirs and legatees” of the estate on oath, as required, it is to be presumed that an exception would have been taken, and the matter would then properly have appeared on the record. It is not necessary ordinarily, that these things should appear by the record. They will be presumed to have been done, in the absence of an exception for the want of them. The case of Eddings et al. v. Long et al. (10 Ala. 203) is decisive of this matter.

The first assignment of error is good, as was decided by this court, at the June Term, 1851, in the case of Devor’s Heirs v. Devor’s Administrator. Where it appears from the record, that there are minors, it must also appear that they were represented on the final settlement by a guardian, or guardian ad litem; and if it does not, it will be error.

For this error, the decree of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

PHELAN, J.

It does not appear by the record, that any such affidavits as those to which the second and third assignments relate were filed by the administrator, nor is it necessary that it should. If the administrator had neglected, or refused to make the oath, in regard to the use of the money of the estate, or to file “a list of the heirs and legatees” of the estate on oath, as required, it is to be presumed that an exception would have been taken, and the matter would then properly have appeared on the record. It is not necessary ordinarily, that these things should appear by the record. They will be presumed to have been done, in the absence of an exception for the want of them. The case of Eddings et al. v. Long et al. (10 Ala. 203) is decisive of this matter.

The first assignment of error is good, as was decided by this court, at the June Term, 1851, in the case of Devor’s Heirs v. Devor’s Administrator. Where it appears from the record, that there are minors, it must also appear that they were represented on the final settlement by a guardian, or guardian ad litem; and if it does not, it will be error.

For this error, the decree of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ala. 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clacks-heirs-v-clacks-admrs-ala-1852.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack