Fairley v. Currie
| Decision Date | 30 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | 2823 |
| Citation | 82 So. 267,120 Miss. 400 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | FAIRLEY v. CURRIE ET AL |
1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. Claim against estate. Contract Registration.
A written agreement by an intestate to pay specified prices for clearing land and plowing and breaking approximately twenty acres of land and for delivering post for the cleared land is not capable of being used as a probated account or claim under Code 1906, section 734, because the amount of work is not set out in the agreement.
2. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. Registering claim against estate. Allowances.
A claim showing the name of the creditor and stating that a specified amount is due for clearing land is properly registered and should be allowed, where its correctness is established by evidence showing the amount of the work and the price per acre is shown by a written agreement signed by deceased though the agreement alone is not capable of being used as a probated account under Code 1906, sections 734-735, because the amount of work is not set out therein.
HON. W M. DENNY, Chancellor.
APPEAL from the chancery court of George county, HON. W. M. DENNY Chancellor.
Claim by Enoch Fairley against Alexander Currie and another as administrators of the estate of London Fairley deceased. Motion by administrators to dismiss the claim overruled and claim dismissed at close of evidence and claimant appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
A. T. L. Watkins, for appellant.
We think the learned chancellor erred in holding that the paper in question is "written evidence thereof, if any." Section 2106 (not 734). We respectfully submit that no man can take the paper in question, and say that any man owes any man any sum of money, or that he ever will, and the papers served no purpose, except to knock out the charge that claimant was to have the use of the land, for the work of clearing it; such a contention is absurd, on its face; the day passed, when men work at that price. Besides, as before stated, claimant had no notice of any such issue, and was not prepared to defend on that score. If the learned chancellor be correct in holding the writing, or writings, there being two on the same paper, to be written evidence of debt, as per, section 2106, yet the law does not contemplate that a party shall lose his work or claim because such instrument happens to be lost or mislaid, and it was his duty on learning that the paper had just come to light to permit it to be attached, or on objection, set a trial to determine whether it could be admitted, and if not, why not, and who was in fault, where the paper had been all the while, that is, in whose custody. There is nothing in this record to show that it had ever been in the possession of claimant.
We respectfully submit that, as the claim had been allowed and probated, and no contest had been filed, except," that claimant was to use the land, for his pay" and that no proof was offered on that issue, the cause should be reversed and contest dismissed, and the administrators taxed with the cost of appeal.
N. T. Currie, for appellees.
The appellant did not probate his claim in the manner required by section 2106 of the Code of Mississippi. 1906. More than one year had elapsed since the date of the first publication of the notice to creditors to present their claims at the time the appellant's claim was dismissed, and the court was powerless to grant the appellant any relief. Section 2107, Code 1906.
This is an appeal from a decree of the chancellor refusing to allow a claim registered against the estate of London Fairley, deceased. The administrators of the estate filed a motion asking the chancellor to disallow and dismiss the claim against the estate for the following reasons, viz.:
(1) Because the original of said claim propounded against the estate was not filed in the time required by law after notice to creditors to file and probate and register their claims.
(2) Because no copy of the original claim or the contract upon which same was based has been filed.
The court overruled this motion. Whereupon evidence was taken in support of the claim.
The decision of this case turns upon the registration of the claim against the estate, and we therefore reproduce the description of the claim from the register, viz:
Briefly stated, the evidence shows that the deceased signed and delivered to appellant the following written document:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice Stix Dry Goods Co. v. Monsour
... ... it to probate an allowance ... Lehman ... v. Power, 49 So. 622; Fairley v. Fairley, 82 So ... 267; Duffy v. Kilroe, 76 So. 681; Poster v ... Shaffer, 36 So. 343; Ellsworth v. Busby, 160 ... So. 574; 24 C. J. 348, ... ...
-
Capital Elec. Power Ass'n v. City of Canton, 47005
...the instant case was mere evidence of an agreement as to area and was not the right on which the suit was based. cf. Fairley v. Fairley, 120 Miss. 400, 82 So. 267 (1919). Judge Griffith points out in his Mississippi Chancery Practice, 2d ed., § 190, p. 178 (1950), that '(T)he rule does not ......
-
Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Goldstein
... ... 523; Deposit Guaranty B. & T. Co. v ... Jordan's Estate, 171 Miss. 332; Levy v ... Merchants Bank & T. Co., 124 Miss. 325; Fairley v ... Fairley, 120 Miss. 400 ... The ... requirement of the statute is not idle. We can easily imagine ... a case where a note would ... ...
-
Wunderlich v. Holt
... ... here have been held sufficient. Hurd v. Varney (N ... H.) 144 A. 266; Miller v. Summers, 124 Ark ... 599, 187 S.W. 664; Fairley v. Currie, 120 Miss. 400, ... 82 So. 267; Gaulden v. Ramsey, 123 Miss. 1, 85 So ... 109; Crampton v. Kirfel, 37 S.D. 292, 157 N.W. 1057; ... Hays ... ...