Nevitt's Admr. v. Chandeon

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Nevitt's Admr. v. Chandeon

4 Ky. Op. 537, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 107

DecidedJanuary 4, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Ky. Op. 537 (Nevitt's Admr. v. Chandeon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nevitt's Admr. v. Chandeon, 4 Ky. Op. 537, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 107 (Ky. Ct. App. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion op the Oourt by

Judge' Peters :

This suit was brought by appellant, administrator de bonis non of Ann B. Nevitt, deceased, against Bray, as former executor of Mrs. Nevitt, and Price and appellant as sureties of Bray in his executorial bond. Judgment was rendered against Bray and Price, who made no defense, and the petition dismissed as to appellee, who defended the suit, and appellants seeks to reverse the judgment in favor of appellee.

In the case of Felts, &c., vs. Brown’s Admr., 3 J. J. Mar. 147, this court held that the right to recover for the assets which came to the hands of the first administrator, and were wasted by him, was in the distributees, .and not in the administrator de bonis non, and Graves, &c., vs. Downey, 3 Mon. 355, the same question is settled. Appellant’s petition was therefore properly dismissed. But whether appellee may or not ultimately be responsible to the devisees of the testatrix is not now legitimately before us. And we need not anticipate it.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion op the Oourt by

Judge' Peters :

This suit was brought by appellant, administrator de bonis non of Ann B. Nevitt, deceased, against Bray, as former executor of Mrs. Nevitt, and Price and appellant as sureties of Bray in his executorial bond. Judgment was rendered against Bray and Price, who made no defense, and the petition dismissed as to appellee, who defended the suit, and appellants seeks to reverse the judgment in favor of appellee.

In the case of Felts, &c., vs. Brown’s Admr., 3 J. J. Mar. 147, this court held that the right to recover for the assets which came to the hands of the first administrator, and were wasted by him, was in the distributees, .and not in the administrator de bonis non, and Graves, &c., vs. Downey, 3 Mon. 355, the same question is settled. Appellant’s petition was therefore properly dismissed. But whether appellee may or not ultimately be responsible to the devisees of the testatrix is not now legitimately before us. And we need not anticipate it.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Ky. Op. 537, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nevitts-admr-v-chandeon-kyctapp-1872.