Dohle v. Stults

• Decision Date: 09 January 1884
• Docket Number: 10,665
• Parties: Dohle et al. v. Stults, Administrator
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

92 Ind. 540

Dohle et al. v. Stults, Administrator

No. 10,665

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 9, 1884

From the Huntington Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed, at the appellants' costs.

W. H Trammel and T. L. Lucas, for appellants.

J. B Kenner and S. M. Sayler, for appellee.

OPINION

Best C.

The appellee, administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Barbara Dohle, deceased, on the 17th day of December, 1881, filed in the Huntington Circuit Court his report for the final settlement of such estate. Thereupon the appellants appeared and filed an exception to such report. In this exception they averred, in substance, that on the 9th day of November, 1876, Ludwig Dohle died intestate, seized of fourteen and 75/100 acres of land in said county, and leaving his wife, the decedent, surviving him; that the $ 500 to which she was entitled by statute, out of his estate, has never been paid, and that the same may be collected from said real estate which is reasonably worth $ 2,000; that the decedent bequeathed her personal property to the appellant John J. and Frederick J. Dohle, two of her children, etc. Prayer that the appellee be required to collect such claim.

The appellee filed an answer, in which it was averred that said Ludwig Dohle left surviving him his wife, the decedent, and four children; that she took possession of the personal estate left by her husband and used it in the support of her family, except the portion which has been delivered to appellants; that since her death the appellants entered into a contract with Daniel Kitch to sell him three-fourths of said land for $ 1,500; that, in pursuance of said contract, said guardian obtained an order to sell the interest of Frederick J. and David Dohle, another minor son, and did sell the same to said Kitch, for which he paid him $ 1,000, and that John J. conveyed his interest in said land to said Kitch, for which he paid him $ 500; that at the time said agreement was made, the appellants agreed that they would furnish the appellee with such portion of the purchase-money as was necessary to pay three-fourths of the debts of the decedent, and that the same had been done; that before this time said Kitch had purchased the remaining fourth of the other heir, for which he paid $ 325, etc. Wherefore, etc.

A demurrer to the answer was overruled, the report approved and the administrator discharged.

From this order the appellants...