Walker v. Nelson

39 So. 809, 87 Miss. 268
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1905·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Truly, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.

Unless we intend to depart from tbe plain path marked out by previous decisions of this court, commencing with tbe McWorter case, 39 Miss., 779 (80 Am. Dec., 97), and followed until tbe present day, and expressly overrule tbe principle announced in tbe Cheairs case, 81 Miss., 662 (33 South. Rep., 414), tbe latest adjudication of this question, we are constrained to affirm tbe judgment in this case. Tbe itemized account attempted to be probated against tbe estate of tbe decedent was not “signed by tbe creditor,” nor was there any affidavit “attached thereto.” Tbe proof seeking to establish tbe correctness of tbe items of tbe account was properly rejected, because tbe claim itself was not probated in tbe formal manner required by tbe statute.

Affirmed.

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

Walker v. Nelson, 39 So. 809, 87 Miss. 268 (Mich. 1905).

39 So. 809 (Walker v. Nelson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bankston v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Vicksburg
171 So. 18 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1936)
Jennings v. Lowery Berry
112 So. 692 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1927)
Dakota National Bank v. Kleinschmidt
144 N.W. 934 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1914)
Bankston v. Coopwood
55 So. 48 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1911)
Saunders v. Stephenson
47 So. 783 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1909)
Estate of Le Clerc
5 Coffey 297 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1887)