S. Albert Grocer Co. v. Estate of Painter

Missouri Court of Appeals

S. Albert Grocer Co. v. Estate of Painter

66 Mo. App. 481, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 91

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 7, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 66 Mo. App. 481 (S. Albert Grocer Co. v. Estate of Painter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

S. Albert Grocer Co. v. Estate of Painter, 66 Mo. App. 481, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 91 (Mo. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Bond, J.

The plaintiff is a business corporation organized in March, 1892, as the successor of the grocery business, previously owned and conducted by S.' Albert. Plaintiff acquired the assets, and assumed the liabilities, of its predecessor. Prior to the formation of the plaintiff corporation, S.- Albert carried on his grocery business in a building belonging to John Painter, paying a yearly rental of'$700. In July, 1891, said Painter died and defendant qualified as his administratrix. In March, 1893, plaintiff asked for the allowance, “as an offset,” of two book accounts against said Painter’s estate in favor of S. Albert. The Cape Girardeau court of corpmon pleas on its probate side adjudged in favor' of plaintiff’s claims allowing them, as an offset, in the sum of $2,196.25. From á judgment accordingly the defendant administratrix appealed.

This record shows fatal defects on its face. Necessarily no valid judgment of an “offset” could have been rendered by the probate court in favor of the claimant, unless a claim' against it was presented by the administratrix. The record fails to show that such claim was presented for allowance. The jurisdiction of the probate court to allow demands against the estate in the hands of the personal representative is defined by statute. R. S. of 1889, secs. 191,192, et [483]*483seq. Such demands, when presented, are subject to “offsets and other defenses” by the administrator, and, if exceeded by such offsets, judgment may be rendered for the administrator for the excess. For the foregoing reasons the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

All the judges concur.

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

Bond, J.

The plaintiff is a business corporation organized in March, 1892, as the successor of the grocery business, previously owned and conducted by S.' Albert. Plaintiff acquired the assets, and assumed the liabilities, of its predecessor. Prior to the formation of the plaintiff corporation, S.- Albert carried on his grocery business in a building belonging to John Painter, paying a yearly rental of'$700. In July, 1891, said Painter died and defendant qualified as his administratrix. In March, 1893, plaintiff asked for the allowance, “as an offset,” of two book accounts against said Painter’s estate in favor of S. Albert. The Cape Girardeau court of corpmon pleas on its probate side adjudged in favor' of plaintiff’s claims allowing them, as an offset, in the sum of $2,196.25. From á judgment accordingly the defendant administratrix appealed.

This record shows fatal defects on its face. Necessarily no valid judgment of an “offset” could have been rendered by the probate court in favor of the claimant, unless a claim' against it was presented by the administratrix. The record fails to show that such claim was presented for allowance. The jurisdiction of the probate court to allow demands against the estate in the hands of the personal representative is defined by statute. R. S. of 1889, secs. 191,192, et [483]*483seq. Such demands, when presented, are subject to “offsets and other defenses” by the administrator, and, if exceeded by such offsets, judgment may be rendered for the administrator for the excess. For the foregoing reasons the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

All the judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 Mo. App. 481, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-albert-grocer-co-v-estate-of-painter-moctapp-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack