Brashears v. Hicklin
| Decision Date | 31 October 1873 |
| Citation | 54 Mo. 102 |
| Parties | RICHARD M. BRASHEARS, Defendant in Error, v. PALLIS C. HICKLIN, et al., Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Louisiana Court of Common Pleas.
Ledford & Shields, for Plaintiffs in Error.
Ralls & Harison, for Defendant in Error.
This was a suit in the nature of a bill in equity, commenced by the plaintiff against the administrator and heirs of Thomas Hicklin, deceased.
From the record it appears, that in the year 1853 one Eliza Tapley died, leaving a last will, which was duly probated in October of the same year, and letters testamentary were granted on the estate to the plaintiff.
By the terms of the will, the testatrix bequeathed to Thomas Hicklin the sum of $1,742.50, together with certain specific personal property, and also one-third of the residue of the estate.
The plaintiff, as executor, paid to Hicklin the legacy and delivered to him the personal property a short time after he took possession of the estate.
It appears, further, that in August, 1860, he advanced to said Hicklin $1,760.98, and took his receipt therefor, in which it was specified, that after deducting whatever was coming to him as his residuary part in the Tapley estate, he was to repay the balance to the executor, with ten per cent. interest.
In 1861, the plaintiff, by a notice published in a newspaper, in pursuance of the statute, notified all persons interested in the estate, of which he was executor, that he would, at the next term of the Probate Court, make his final settlement. At the next term of this court he appeared and filed his settlement, which, on his motion, was continued to the next term.
No further action or notice of this settlement was taken for nine years. But, without any further notification whatever, in 1870 plaintiff appeared in court and withdrew his settlement filed in 1861, and then made a different and corrected settlement.
By this last settlement it was ascertained and claimed that a certain amount was due the plaintiff on account of money advanced to Thomas Hicklin, over and above what was due him as his residuary interest in the Tapley estate.
In 1860 Thomas Hicklin died, and his estate was duly administered on. The plaintiff did not, within three years, or at any other time, present any demand for allowance against Hicklin's estate, although he claimed that money was due him on account of advancing too much to Hicklin.
By an order of court, before this suit was instituted, Hicklin's administrator distributed the assets of the estate among the heirs.
The object of this proceeding was to specifically trace the money paid to Hicklin's heirs as a trust fund, and have it applied to the satisfaction of plaintiff's demand.
The court below found for the plaintiff, and rendered a judgment against the administrator, and also decreed that Hicklin's heirs should pay over certain moneys...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Knisely v. Holtcamp
...of annual settlements. Lenox v. Harrison, 88 Mo. 491; Mead v. Bakewell, 8 Mo.App. 553; Van Liew v. Barrett & Co., 144 Mo. 515; Brashears v. Hicklin, 54 Mo. 102; May May, 189 Mo. 502. No notice to the executrix of the Leathe estate was required to be given before presenting relator's judgmen......
- Waddle v. Frazier
-
Coleman v. Farrar
... ... Fenix, 80 Mo. 27; North v. Priest, 81 Mo. 561; ... State ex rel. v. Haster, 61 Mo. 544; State ex ... rel. v. Roeper, 82 Mo. 57; Brashears v ... Hicklin, 54 Mo. 102. Before the probate court could ... acquire jurisdiction of the question of Ashby's insanity ... it was essential that ... ...
-
Rogers v. Johnson
... ... C. Woody his ... successor and all proceedings of the latter were consequently ... void, is not well taken. Brashears v. Hicklin, 54 ... Mo. 102; Rugle v. Webster, 55 Mo. 250; Wilkerson ... v. Allen, 67 Mo. 509. (7) The appointment of J. C. Woody ... as ... ...