Lowe v. Larkin

Supreme Court of Alabama

Lowe v. Larkin

76 So. 996, 200 Ala. 698

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 7, 1917

Docket3 Div. 292.

StatusPublished

This text of 76 So. 996 (Lowe v. Larkin) 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

Lowe v. Larkin, 76 So. 996, 200 Ala. 698 (Ala. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

MAYFIELD, J.

This is an appeal by an executrix from a decree rendered on a partial settlement of her accounts. She complains as to three items: (1) The disallowance of her costs for feeding horses belonging to the estate. (2) That she was charged, too much as for the value of a stock of goods disposed of by her. (3) That she was charged too much as for the value of certain jack screws belonging to the estate. Whether or not there was error as to any one item is by the record made *699 to depend upon the evidence, and therefore involves questions of fact only. While item 1 may involve a question of law, there seems to have been no disnute or difference as to_ the law on the subject. Whether or not the item should he allowed seems to have been made to depend upon the questions whether or not the use made of the horses by appellant precluded her right to the allowance, granting that, but for such use, she would have had such right, and whether or not her failure to sell or' otherwise dispose of them would defeat the right to have the allowance for so long a time as ■claimed. It would serve no good purpose to review, analyze, or discuss the evidence. It is sufficient to say that it has been carefully examined, and by the aid of a good brief on behalf of the appellant, and that without giving any weight to the finding of the chancellor, ■and that we are not prepared to say that the chancellor erred as to- any of the items. It therefore results that the decree appealed from must be affirmed. Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

MAYFIELD, J.

This is an appeal by an executrix from a decree rendered on a partial settlement of her accounts. She complains as to three items: (1) The disallowance of her costs for feeding horses belonging to the estate. (2) That she was charged, too much as for the value of a stock of goods disposed of by her. (3) That she was charged too much as for the value of certain jack screws belonging to the estate. Whether or not there was error as to any one item is by the record made *699 to depend upon the evidence, and therefore involves questions of fact only. While item 1 may involve a question of law, there seems to have been no disnute or difference as to_ the law on the subject. Whether or not the item should he allowed seems to have been made to depend upon the questions whether or not the use made of the horses by appellant precluded her right to the allowance, granting that, but for such use, she would have had such right, and whether or not her failure to sell or' otherwise dispose of them would defeat the right to have the allowance for so long a time as ■claimed. It would serve no good purpose to review, analyze, or discuss the evidence. It is sufficient to say that it has been carefully examined, and by the aid of a good brief on behalf of the appellant, and that without giving any weight to the finding of the chancellor, ■and that we are not prepared to say that the chancellor erred as to- any of the items. It therefore results that the decree appealed from must be affirmed. Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 So. 996, 200 Ala. 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowe-v-larkin-ala-1917.