Hanley, Hoye & Co. v. Grimes

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Hanley, Hoye & Co. v. Grimes

36 A. 1132, 19 R.I. 400, 1896 R.I. LEXIS 104

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 18, 1896

DocketJury Trial Waived, No. 99.

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A. 1132 (Hanley, Hoye & Co. v. Grimes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanley, Hoye & Co. v. Grimes, 36 A. 1132, 19 R.I. 400, 1896 R.I. LEXIS 104 (R.I. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs, having failed to prove their claim before the commissioners in insolvency, are precluded from maintaining an action against the defendant as administrator, unless there is a surplus of estate remaining in his hands after payment of the claims allowed by the commissioners or added to their report in accordance with Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 186, §§ 14, 16. Gardner v. Gardner, 17 R. I. 751, 755 ; Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 186, § 19. The defendant has not rendered an account of his administration to the Municipal Court. Till such an account has been rendered and settled, it cannot be known whether or not he has a surplus in his hands. It is the opinion of the court, therefore, that the suit must be continued to await the settlement of the defendant’s account as administrator.

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

The plaintiffs, having failed to prove their claim before the commissioners in insolvency, are precluded from maintaining an action against the defendant as administrator, unless there is a surplus of estate remaining in his hands after payment of the claims allowed by the commissioners or added to their report in accordance with Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 186, §§ 14, 16. Gardner v. Gardner, 17 R. I. 751, 755 ; Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 186, § 19. The defendant has not rendered an account of his administration to the Municipal Court. Till such an account has been rendered and settled, it cannot be known whether or not he has a surplus in his hands. It is the opinion of the court, therefore, that the suit must be continued to await the settlement of the defendant’s account as administrator.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A. 1132, 19 R.I. 400, 1896 R.I. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanley-hoye-co-v-grimes-ri-1896.