Ward v. Cameron's Adm'rs

37 Ala. 691
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 37 Ala. 691 (Ward v. Cameron's Adm'rs) 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
Ward v. Cameron's Adm'rs, 37 Ala. 691 (Ala. 1861).

Opinion

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

rAn application was- made by/the appellants, for-the .repeal of the letters of administra- - tion of the appell'ees. - The parties making the motion filed a petition, -which is set out in the record. In the petition they claim,-to.be the largest creditors of the estate. The entry .of tbe judge, overruling the petition, does not set‘out all tile evidence which was adduced on the trial, and there is. no hill of exceptions. Wé have, .therefore/». [692]*692presented the case, which has been unfortunately of very frequent occurrence, where the correctness of the ruling of the court below depends .upon the proof, and we do not know what the'proof was. In such case, we must presume in favor of the correctness of the j udgment, and award an affirmance, — Morgan v. Morgan, 35 Ala. 303 ; Taylor v. McElrath, ib. 330 ; Southern Ins. Co. v. Holcombe, ib. 327; Rupert v. Elston, ib. 79.

[2.J It is not shown that the appellants proved that they were the largest creditors of the estate, or, indeed, that they were creditors at all. We have decided, that where an administrator was appointed'within forty days, in contravention of the order of preference prescribed by the statute,the.largest creditor of-the estate.might proceed to obtain a revocation of the administration. — Curtis v. Williams, 33 Ala. 570 ; Curtis v. Burt, 34 ib. 729. But, unless the petitioner was a creditor of the estate, he would have no right to move for a revocation of an irregular appointment, and no ground for complaint -.that the court overruled his .motion. As it does not appear that the petitioners were -creditors, we can ..not affirm that there was no sufficient.reason,for.the actiomof the court.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Starlin v. Love
185 So. 380 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
May v. Lewis
41 Ala. 315 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1867)
Wills & Hobbs v. Rand's Adm'rs
41 Ala. 198 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1867)
Moore v. Baker
39 Ala. 704 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1866)
Mims' Adm'r v. Mims
39 Ala. 716 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 Ala. 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-camerons-admrs-ala-1861.