Adams v. Larrimore
| Decision Date | 31 October 1872 |
| Citation | 51 Mo. 130 |
| Parties | SIMEON C. ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. WILLIAM C. LARRIMORE, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Audrain Circuit Court.
McFarland and Hayden, for Plaintiff in Error.
Wm. J. Howell, for Defendant in Error.
This is an action of ejectment to recover lands lying in Audrain county. The ancestor of the plaintiffs in error died intestate, seized of the land in controversy, and they now claim by descent as his heirs-in-law. The defendant in error derives his title through a sale of the land made by the public administrator of Audrain county, who had charge of the testator's estate. Several objections have been taken to the proceedings of the administrator, which resulted in the sale, and which it is alleged rendered his action and the sale thereunder invalid. It is contended that the whole proceeding is void, because there is no record evidence that the county court ordered him to take charge of the estate, and that he did not file any notice of the fact of his administering in the office of the clerk of the court having probate jurisdiction. There are certain instances in which the county court may order the public administrator to take possession of an estate to prevent its being wasted or injured; and in other cases it is his duty to take charge of an estate without any order, one of which is, when money, property, papers or other estate are left in a situation exposed to loss or damage, and no other person administers on the same. (
The evidence clearly shows, and there is no dispute about this fact, that this estate was left in a condition which authorized the public administrator to take possession of the same and proceed to administer thereon. The intestate died away from home; the property was in the county where he resided; no one was there capable of taking care of it, and it was liable to deterioration and loss. But the statute further provides that it shall be the duty of every public administrator immediately upon taking charge of an estate (except where he acts under the order of the court) for the purpose of administering the same, to file a notice of the fact in the office of the clerk of the court having probate jurisdiction. (1 Wag. Stat. p. 123, § 13). If, however, he should omit to file the notice, we do not think that that would render the whole administration void. The assumption that such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Millner v. Shipley
...73 Mo. 114; Hewett v. Weatherby, 57 Mo. 276; Howard v. Stevenson, 11 Mo.App. 410; State ex rel. v. Sargent, 12 Mo.App. 228, 237; Adams v. Larrimore, 51 Mo. 130; v. Woelkin, 13 Mo.App. 275; Gilkerson v. Knight, 71 Mo. 403; Rosenheim v. Hartsock, 90 Mo. 357; Burnett v. McCluey, 92 Mo. 230. Ma......
-
Leeper v. Taylor
...396. It has been held that the failure to give the notice required by section 302 will not render the whole administration void. Adams v. Larrimore, 51 Mo. 130. Here the administrator took charge of the estate and filed a notice of the fact in the office of the clerk of the probate court, a......
-
In re Estate of Landgraf
... ... under the circumstances specified in the statute creating his ... office. Sec. 302, R. S. 1909; Adams v. Larrimore, 51 ... Mo. 130; McCabe v. Lewis, 76 Mo. 296; Tittman v ... Edwards, 27 Mo.App. 492; State ex rel. v. Mast, ... 104 Mo.App. 348; ... ...
-
Orchard v. Wright-Dalton-Bell-Anchor Store Co.
...reference may be made to the petition for its description, if the order directs the sale of "the land described in the petition." Adams v. Larimore, 51 Mo. 130; Agan v. Shannon, 103 Mo. 15 S. W. 757. We have so ruled on the principle that "that is certain which can be made certain." But tha......