Creech v. Young

• Decision Date: 15 April 1902
• Citation: 94 Mo. App. 90,67 S.W. 963
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: CREECH et al. v. YOUNG.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

67 S.W. 963

94 Mo. App. 90

CREECH et al. v. YOUNG.¹

Court of Appeals of St. Louis, Missouri.

April 15, 1902.

APPEALABLE ORDER.

An order denying a motion to vacate an order overruling a motion in action against an administrator to appoint an administrator ad litem is not appealable, not being enumerated among the orders from which Rev. St. 1899, § 806, provides that an appeal may be taken before final judgment.

Appeal from circuit court, Lincoln county; Hughes, Judge.

Action by Lizzie Brevator against William R. Young, administrator. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order overruling a motion to appoint an administrator ad litem, Brevator Creech and another appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Martin & Woolfolk, for appellants. Wheeler & Powell, for respondent.

BLAND, P. J.

Briefly stated, the facts in this case are that William R. Young is the administrator of the estate of Catherine Hedges, deceased. He is also an attorney at law, and a member of the law firm of Norton, Avery & Young. Lizzie Brevator, one of the heirs of Catherine Hedges, sued Young, as administrator, to recover of the estate $4,000 alleged to be due to her from the estate. The heirs of Catherine Hedges, other than Lizzie Brevator, undertook to assist the administrator in the defense of the suit. Norton & Avery were the attorneys of Lizzie Brevator, and brought the suit for her. Wheeler & Powell, attorneys, were employed by Young to represent the estate. Martin & Woolfolk had been employed to represent the other heirs in a former suit brought by Lizzie Brevator against them and Young for the specific performance of a contract to convey real estate. Wheeler & Powell, who prepared the answer in the $4,000 suit, supposing that Martin & Woolfolk were to continue to represent the heirs other than Lizzie Brevator, signed their names and the names of Martin & Woolfolk to the answer as attorneys for defendant, Young. This seems to have been a mistake, as, on discovering that their names were signed as attorneys to the answer, Martin & Woolfolk withdrew from the case; and on the same day, at the instance of Brevator Creech and Clay Wise, two of the heirs of Catherine Hedges, was filed the following motion: "Now come Brevator Creech and Clay Wise, and show to the court that they are interested in and affected by all claims and demands allowed against the estate of Catherine Hedges. That this is a suit for the allowance of a claim of $4,000 against said estate; that Brevator Creech, as one of the heirs of said Catherine Hedges, is entitled to...