In re the Appeal of Bigge

52 Kan. 184
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 15, 1893
StatusPublished

This text of 52 Kan. 184 (In re the Appeal of Bigge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Appeal of Bigge, 52 Kan. 184 (kan 1893).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

AlleN, J.:

On the 9th day of July, 1888, Lewis Bigge, as administrator of the estate of Philip Behrens, deceased, presented to the probate court of Rooks county an unverified statement, purporting to be an account of his administration of said estate. No action, however, was taken by the court thereon. Afterward he gave due notice of final settlement, and on June 3,1889, presented to said court what purported to be a final account of his administration, containing a number of items, among which, is included, “By balance due last [July 9, ’88] settlement, $164.77.” In the settlement first filed is the item “Cash to balance %, $162.77.” The hearing on the final settlement was continued to July 20, 1889, when the court made an order disallowing certain charges for interest, commission, and services, and allowing in lieu thereof 5 per cent, on the amount of money collected. Thereupon the administrator appealed to the district court. After testimony had been introduced by both sides, the district court found that the probate court had not passed upon nor finally considered said settlement as a whole, and that the same was still pending in the probate court undetermined, and thereupon ordered said appeal to be dismissed.

There is nothing in the record showing final action by the [185]*185probate court of Eooks county on auy other matters included in the settlement than the specific items disallowed, nor does the oral testimony offered in the district court show final action to have been taken by that court. It therefore follows that the district court ruled correctly in dismissing the appeal.

Though it is not necessary to a decision of the case presented, we remark that the administrator’s appeal appears to us without merit. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 Kan. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-appeal-of-bigge-kan-1893.