Carroll v. Richardson

Citation87 Ala. 605,6 So. 342
Decision Date11 June 1889
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

6 So. 342

87 Ala. 605



Supreme Court of Alabama

June 11, 1889

Appeal from chancery court, Butler county; JOHN A. FOSTER, Chancellor.

Bills in equity by James Monroe Carroll against J. C. Richardson, executor, to compel the payment of a specific legacy, and for the construction of the will, and by Richardson against Carroll to remove the administration into a court of equity. The first one of the cases referred to in the opinion of the court was where a legatee filed his bill before the expiration of 18 months after the qualification of an executor, to compel the executor to pay over to him at once a specific legacy left to him by the will. the other case was where a bill was filed by the executor, asking for a proper construction of the will, and praying to have the administration of the decedent's estate removed into a court of chancery. Carroll appears from an interlocutory decree overruling his several demurrers.

Tompkins, London & Troy, for appellant.

Watts & Son, for appellee.


These two suits refer to the estate of J. T. Perry, deceased. Mr. Perry left a will and codicil, each of which was proven and established as his last will and testament; and Richardson, one of the executors named in the will, qualified as such, and took upon himself the execution of the trust. The other two did not qualify. The suit stated first above was instituted probably in less than six months after the probate of the will, J. M. Carroll being the complainant. The record fail to furnish the date when either bill was filed. Whether this be so or not, it is manifest that each of the bills was filed in much less than 18 months after the probate of the will.

When a personal representative of a decedent's will is appointed and qualifies, the result is that the title to all personal effects of the estate, including choses in action, vests immediately in him, and that title relates back to and takes effect from decedent's death. 1 Brick. Dig. p. 932, §§ 262, 264; 3 Brick. Dig. p. 463, § 130. It then becomes his duty to possess himself of all personal effects, that he may pay the debts, and perform the other functions of administration. Until the expiration of 18 months after the appointment of a personal representative, the law does not impute to him a knowledge of the condition of the estate as to solvency or insolvency. Till then he cannot be coerced to pay or assent to a legacy. Code...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Reid v. Armistead, 1 Div. 797.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 21, 1933
    ...... decree overruling the demurrer to the bill for construction,. and the affirmance thereof, the will was not construed on. first appeal. Carroll v. Richardson, 87 Ala. 605, 6. So. 342; Ashurst et al. v. Ashurst, 175 Ala. 667, 57. So. 442; Powell et al. v. Labry et al., 207 Ala. 117, 92 So. ......
  • Henderson v. Henderson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 24, 1923
    ...... Brasher, 202 Ala. 578, 81 So. 80; Caldwell v. Caldwell, 204 Ala. 161, 85 So. 493; Gunter v. Townsend, 202 Ala. 160, 79 So. 644; Carroll v. Richardson, 87 Ala. 605, 6 So. 342. The learned counsel. for appellant has made the admission, saying:. . . "At the outset, we must ......
  • Crawford v. Carlisle
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 30, 1921
    ...... administrator cum testamento annexo, or by a testamentary or. other guardian or trustee, qualified and acting ( Carroll. v. Richardson, 87 Ala. 605, 6 So. 342; Fowlkes v. Clay,. supra), or by any person, heir, devisee, legatee, or. distributee, having a pecuniary ......
  • Jemison v. Brasher
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 6, 1919
    ......442;. Ralls v. Johnson, 75 So. 926, 930; Pearce v. Pearce, 74 So. 952, 959; Kaplan v. Coleman, 180. Ala. 267, 60 So. 885; Carroll v. Richardson, 87 Ala. 605, 610, 6 So. 342. This, however, is changed by statute. (Gen. Acts 1915, p. 738), and the right of removal is not. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT