Exrs v. Eidman
| Decision Date | 30 June 1873 |
| Citation | 1873 WL 8314,68 Ill. 193 |
| Parties | ELIZABETH SCHEEL et al. Exrs.v.MICHAEL EIDMAN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. G. & G. A. KŒRNER, for the appellants.Mr. WILLIAM H. UNDERWOOD, for the appellee.
This appears to have been originally a proceeding in the county court of St. Clair county, to ascertain the amount due from the estate of John Scheel, deceased, as late guardian of the minor heirs of Adam Eidman.
The proceeding was instituted in the names of William, Margaret, Michael and Louisa Eidman, March 14, 1871. On appeal to the circuit court, judgment was rendered that “the survivors of said heirs of Adam Eidman, to-wit: Michael, William and Margaret Eidman, recover of the estate of John Scheel, late guardian of said wards, the sum of $1444, to be satisfied in claims of the third class pro rata out of any estate not inventoried”--the amount of the recovery, as conceded, being the sum of $624.86, with compound interest from the time Scheel was supposed to have received it up to the time of his death, January 17, 1864, and simple interest from that time to the recovery. The executors of Scheel, who appeared throughout, appealed. Various points are made in favor of the reversal of the judgment.
It is first objected that the claim was not a joint one, and could not be prosecuted jointly.
The money was the proceeds of the sale of a certain tract of land made in a suit for partition, brought by William, Margaret, Michael and Louisa Eidman, minor heirs and children of Adam Eidman, against Laura St. Clair, wherein the said minors were found to be entitled to five-sixths of the land, without specifying their several interests.
John Scheel took out letters of guardianship for them jointly, and the joint sum of money due them all, as the proceeds of the sale, was received by him as guardian, and, so far as appears, was never separated or accounted for by him to them or any of them, separately or jointly. We can not say that the claim was improperly prosecuted in their joint names against the estate of the guardian for allowance.
It is next objected that the proceeding is against “the estate of John Scheel, deceased,” and that the judgment is against “the estate of John Scheel,” instead of against the executors, as it should have been. The suit is entitled, in the county court, against “The estate of John Scheel, deceased, late guardian; Elizabeth and Frederick Scheel, executors.” The executors appeared and contested the claim.
The proceeding is not to be governed by all the technical rules which apply to a formal suit at law. We think the proceedings and judgment in the particular named were sufficient in form to show an adjudication of the claim against the estate as contemplated by the statute.
It is next objected, that the proceeding was commenced in the name of five plaintiffs, to-wit: Michael Eidman, Louise Henn, William Eidman, Margaret Eidman and Laura Eidman, and that the judgment was in favor of only three of them, Michael, William and Margaret, described as survivors of said minor heirs. The parties, without any process, appeared, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flynn v. Driscoll
... ... Rensford, 185 Ala. 333, 64 So. 366; ... Easley v. Rowe, 138 Ark. 58, 210 S.W. 145; ... Ellison v. Allen, 8 Fla. 206; Scheel v ... Eidman, 68 Ill. 193; Hanen v. Leander, 178 Iowa ... 569, 160 N.W. 18; Stewart v. Carr, 6 Gill (Md.), ... 430; Connecticut L. Ins. Co. v. Schurmeier, ... ...
-
Peoples Trust & Sav. Bank of Chicago v. Schmitt (In re Schmitt's Estate)
...at law. Blair v. Sennott, 134 Ill. 78, 24 N.E. 969. It is not governed by technical rules which apply to a formal suit at law. Scheel v. Eidman, 68 Ill. 193. In allowance of claims against estates the probate court disregards mere matters of form, and looks to the substance. Wolf v. Beaird,......
-
Niehaus' Estate, In re, Gen. No. 50M19
...but claims in probate have never been subject to such technical forms of pleading. Grier v. Cable, 159 Ill. 29, 41 N.E. 395; Scheel v. Eidman, 68 Ill. 193. The claim of variance cannot be As to the nature of the services performed by claimant, she took care of the household duties for many ......
-
Grier v. Cable
...v. Beaird, 123 Ill. 585, 15 N. E. 161. The proceeding is not governed by the technical rules which apply to suits at law. Scheel v. Eidman, 68 Ill. 193. A ‘suit or proceeding at law,’ as those terms are used in section 8 of the appellate court act, must be understood to mean a suit or proce......