Elders v. Stripling

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Elders v. Stripling

44 S.E.2d 68, 75 Ga. App. 640, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 601

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 10, 1947

Docket31674.

StatusPublished

This text of 44 S.E.2d 68 (Elders v. Stripling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elders v. Stripling, 44 S.E.2d 68, 75 Ga. App. 640, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 601 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

It appears from the evidence that the administrator made no inventory of the estate and filed no proper returns during the approximately 20 years the assets of the estate were in his hands. He attempted to charge 2% percent commission for receiving and 2% percent for paying out funds which came into his hands, and he attempted to charge extra for expenses for trips which he claims to have made in connection with the estate. In addition to the $300.23 which he admitted in his answer that he then held, he admitted that he had deducted an additional $100 for a tombstone which had never been purchased. In his statement to the court and jury he offered to pay this $400.23. Without going into detail as to the evidence, the jury were authorized to find for the plaintiffs in the amount of their verdict, if in *642 deed not more. Under such a situation as here presented, the burden was on the administrator to prove that he had administered the estate correctly, where there were no annual returns as required by law, and if returns, they were not as the law requires and not allowed by the ordinary. In this connection, see Ellis v. McWilliams, 70 Ga. App. 195 (27 S. E. 2d, 886). See also the Code, § 113-2006, as to forfeiture of commissions; § 113-2007, as to traveling and other expenses; and § 113-2008, regarding extra compensation for other extraordinary services.

The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial for any of the reasons assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

It appears from the evidence that the administrator made no inventory of the estate and filed no proper returns during the approximately 20 years the assets of the estate were in his hands. He attempted to charge 2% percent commission for receiving and 2% percent for paying out funds which came into his hands, and he attempted to charge extra for expenses for trips which he claims to have made in connection with the estate. In addition to the $300.23 which he admitted in his answer that he then held, he admitted that he had deducted an additional $100 for a tombstone which had never been purchased. In his statement to the court and jury he offered to pay this $400.23. Without going into detail as to the evidence, the jury were authorized to find for the plaintiffs in the amount of their verdict, if in *642 deed not more. Under such a situation as here presented, the burden was on the administrator to prove that he had administered the estate correctly, where there were no annual returns as required by law, and if returns, they were not as the law requires and not allowed by the ordinary. In this connection, see Ellis v. McWilliams, 70 Ga. App. 195 (27 S. E. 2d, 886). See also the Code, § 113-2006, as to forfeiture of commissions; § 113-2007, as to traveling and other expenses; and § 113-2008, regarding extra compensation for other extraordinary services.

The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial for any of the reasons assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 S.E.2d 68, 75 Ga. App. 640, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elders-v-stripling-gactapp-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack