Hurst v. Williamson

42 Ala. 296
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 Ala. 296 (Hurst v. Williamson) 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
Hurst v. Williamson, 42 Ala. 296 (Ala. 1868).

Opinion

BYRD. J.

There is no statute which authorizes the probate court to revive a decree rendered against an administrator on a settlement of his administration, in favor-of a distributee of the estate, against the personal representative of such administration.

Whatever may be the remedy of such distributee, the law does not afford one by scire facias, to revive the decree [297]*297against such personal representative. — Code, § 1930 ; Kirby, Adm’r, v. Anders, Guardian, &c., 26 Ala. 468.

It results that the decree of revivor must be reversed, and a decree here rendered quashing the scire facias.

The appellees must pay the costs of this court and the court below.

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

Related

Bobo v. Gunnels
92 Ala. 601 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 Ala. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurst-v-williamson-ala-1868.