McCollum v. McCollum's

Supreme Court of Alabama

McCollum v. McCollum's

33 Ala. 711

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1859

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 33 Ala. 711 (McCollum v. McCollum's) 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

McCollum v. McCollum's, 33 Ala. 711 (Ala. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

R. W. WALKER, J.—

Under the authority of the decision in the case of Walker v. Hunter, at the present term, we must consider the appeal bond found in this record as a sufficient security for the costs; and the motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.

[2.] The act of February 16, 1854, (Session Acts ’53 and ’54, p. 45,) invests the probate court with authority to order the sale of the personal estate of a decedent, to make distribution among the legatees or distributees, “ unless power is conferred by the will to sell such property for that purpose.” The jurisdiction of the court is thus made to depend on the fact, that under the will the executor has no power to sell such property for the purpose of division among the legatees.

[3.] ■ In the present ease, the testator directs all his property, lands, negroes, &c., to be valued by three disinterested men, and divided, or sold, and the money distributed among the legatees. A power to sell the slaves, and distribute the proceeds, is here conferred; and although the executor is not expressly designated as the donee of the power, it devolves upon him by necessary implication. For, wherever such a power is given by will, the law casts it upon the person who is appointed by the testator to. execute the will, unless it is specially delegated to another.—4 Kent, 327; 1 Sugden on Powers, 167, 172. It follows that the court had no j urisdiction to make the order in this ease.

The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to the probate court to dismiss the proceeding.

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

R. W. WALKER, J.—

Under the authority of the decision in the case of Walker v. Hunter, at the present term, we must consider the appeal bond found in this record as a sufficient security for the costs; and the motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.

[2.] The act of February 16, 1854, (Session Acts ’53 and ’54, p. 45,) invests the probate court with authority to order the sale of the personal estate of a decedent, to make distribution among the legatees or distributees, “ unless power is conferred by the will to sell such property for that purpose.” The jurisdiction of the court is thus made to depend on the fact, that under the will the executor has no power to sell such property for the purpose of division among the legatees.

[3.] ■ In the present ease, the testator directs all his property, lands, negroes, &c., to be valued by three disinterested men, and divided, or sold, and the money distributed among the legatees. A power to sell the slaves, and distribute the proceeds, is here conferred; and although the executor is not expressly designated as the donee of the power, it devolves upon him by necessary implication. For, wherever such a power is given by will, the law casts it upon the person who is appointed by the testator to. execute the will, unless it is specially delegated to another.—4 Kent, 327; 1 Sugden on Powers, 167, 172. It follows that the court had no j urisdiction to make the order in this ease.

The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to the probate court to dismiss the proceeding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ala. 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccollum-v-mccollums-ala-1859.

Opinion

R. W. WALKER, J.—

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack