Farmer's Distributees v. Farmer's Adm'r

Supreme Court of Alabama

Farmer's Distributees v. Farmer's Adm'r

26 Ala. 671

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1855

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 Ala. 671 (Farmer's Distributees v. Farmer's Adm'r) 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

Farmer's Distributees v. Farmer's Adm'r, 26 Ala. 671 (Ala. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

G-OLDTH WAITE, J.

—We think the court erred, in foiling to charge the appellee with interest on the amount of money shown to be in his hands as administrator, from tho time it was received by him. The effect of the act of 1828 (Olay's Digest, p. 198, § 28), and of the Code (§ 1813), is, to render an administrator prima facie liable for 'interest, unless he discharges himself by making the affidavit required.—King v. Cabiness, 12 Ala. R. 598; Hollis v. Caughman and Wife, 22 ib. 478. In the present case, the appellee does not deny that he used the funds, but seeks to avoid the effect of the statutory requisition, by making affidavit that “he always had on hand, or within his immediate control, a sum amply sufficient to pay” the amount due by him as administrator.— This might be the case, and still he may have used the trust funds.

Let the decree be reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

G-OLDTH WAITE, J.

—We think the court erred, in foiling to charge the appellee with interest on the amount of money shown to be in his hands as administrator, from tho time it was received by him. The effect of the act of 1828 (Olay's Digest, p. 198, § 28), and of the Code (§ 1813), is, to render an administrator prima facie liable for 'interest, unless he discharges himself by making the affidavit required.—King v. Cabiness, 12 Ala. R. 598; Hollis v. Caughman and Wife, 22 ib. 478. In the present case, the appellee does not deny that he used the funds, but seeks to avoid the effect of the statutory requisition, by making affidavit that “he always had on hand, or within his immediate control, a sum amply sufficient to pay” the amount due by him as administrator.— This might be the case, and still he may have used the trust funds.

Let the decree be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Ala. 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-distributees-v-farmers-admr-ala-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack