Cronk v. Cronk

142 Ala. 214
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1904
StatusPublished

This text of 142 Ala. 214 (Cronk v. Cronk) 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
Cronk v. Cronk, 142 Ala. 214 (Ala. 1904).

Opinion

TYSON, J.

Tlie hill in this cause, as amended, was filed by complainants who are devisees under the last will and testament of their deceased mother against the respondent individually and as executor to Avhom letters testamentary had been duly issued by the probate court of Mobile county. Its purpose, as clearly shown, by the amendment is tAVofold: to remove the administration of the estate out of the probate court, to the chancery court and to require the respondent to give security for the faithful execution of the trust reposed by the will and accepted by him.

The demurrer to the bill, as amended, Avhich Avas o.verruled, and of which complaint is here made, does not challenge or purport to challenge the 'sufficiency of the allegations to have the administration removed. And, for that matter, its averments in that respect could not successfully be.- — Bromberg v. Bates, 98 Ala. 621.

Its evident purpose is to raise the question of the sufficiency of the allegation Avith respect to the right of complainants to require respondent to give a bond for his faithful administration of the trust. But interposed as it is to the amended ..bill, ás a AVhole, and not to that I>hase of it indicated above, the decree appealed from must l)e affirmed, irrespective of Avhether the objections' pointed out by the demurrer be good or bad. — Houston v. Williamson, 81 Ala. 482, Beall & Caston v. Lehman, Durr & Co., 110 Ala. 446; Worthington v. Miller, 134 Ala. 420.

Affirmed.

McClellan, O. J., Simpson and' Anderson, J. J., concurring.

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

Related

Houston v. Williamson
81 Ala. 482 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1886)
Bromberg v. Bates
98 Ala. 621 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)
Beall & Coston v. Lehman Durr Co.
110 Ala. 446 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1895)
Worthington v. Miller
134 Ala. 420 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 Ala. 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cronk-v-cronk-ala-1904.