Hooper v. Smith T.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Hooper v. Smith T.

57 Ala. 557

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 57 Ala. 557 (Hooper v. Smith T.) 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

Hooper v. Smith T., 57 Ala. 557 (Ala. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

1. After administration has been pending more than eighteen months, it is prima facie the right of ■distributees to call the personal representative to a settlement. If there be special reasons why settlement and distribution should not then be made, this is a defensive matter, the duty ■of showing which rests with the administrator.—Code of 1876, § 2528; Chighizoa v. LeBarron, 21 Ala. 406.

2. Before proceedings are instituted in the court of probate, looking to a settlement, distributees of the estate, without showing any special reason therefor, may file a. bill in the Chancery Court against the administrator and his -sureties, to have settlement made in the Chancery Court; .and, to this «nd, may have the administration transferred to [560]*560such last-mentioned court.—Harrison v. Harrison, 9 Ala. 470, 479; Pearson v. Darrington, 18 Ala. 348; Gould v. Hays, 19 Ala. 438; Stewart v. Stewart, 31 Ala. 207; Sellers v. Sellers, 35 Ala. 235; McNeill v. McNeill, 36 Ala. 109; 1 Brick. Dig. 647, § 120.

There is no error in the record, and the decree of the-chancellor, overruling the demurrer to the bill, is affirmed.

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

STONE, J.

1. After administration has been pending more than eighteen months, it is prima facie the right of ■distributees to call the personal representative to a settlement. If there be special reasons why settlement and distribution should not then be made, this is a defensive matter, the duty ■of showing which rests with the administrator.—Code of 1876, § 2528; Chighizoa v. LeBarron, 21 Ala. 406.

2. Before proceedings are instituted in the court of probate, looking to a settlement, distributees of the estate, without showing any special reason therefor, may file a. bill in the Chancery Court against the administrator and his -sureties, to have settlement made in the Chancery Court; .and, to this «nd, may have the administration transferred to [560]*560such last-mentioned court.—Harrison v. Harrison, 9 Ala. 470, 479; Pearson v. Darrington, 18 Ala. 348; Gould v. Hays, 19 Ala. 438; Stewart v. Stewart, 31 Ala. 207; Sellers v. Sellers, 35 Ala. 235; McNeill v. McNeill, 36 Ala. 109; 1 Brick. Dig. 647, § 120.

There is no error in the record, and the decree of the-chancellor, overruling the demurrer to the bill, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Ala. 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooper-v-smith-t-ala-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack