Felsenthal v. Kline
| Decision Date | 21 February 1905 |
| Parties | FELSENTHAL v. KLINE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.
Judicial accounting by Eli B. Felsenthal, as administrator of the estate of Herman Felsenthal, deceased. From an order classifying a claim of the administrator, assigned to him in the name of Samuel J. Kline, against the estate, as a claim of the seventh class, he appeals. Affirmed.Edward C. Fitch, for appellant.
F. S. Baird, for appellee Sicotte.
On September 3, 1899, Herman Felsenthal died intestate, and appelant was appointed administrator of his estate. He found in the Union National Bank of Chicago two accounts, one being the personal account of Herman Felsenthal, in which there was a balance of $176.62, and the other being in the name of Herman Felsenthal, trustee, in which there was a balance of $11,166.71. This last account was made up of items which the deceased had received from certain customers for whom he acted as a broker or loan agent. These customers presented claims to the administrator for the amounts which they claimed to be due them, and he paid them before they were filed in the probate court, but whether out of funds belonging to the estate or from his own personal moneys does not appear. He had the claims, however, assigned to himself in the name of Samuel J. Kline, and he filed them for probate in a single amount, aggregating $6,186.09. The court allowed $219.95 of the amount as a first-class claim, and the balance, $5,866.04, as a seventh-class claim, and ordered both paid in due course of administration. The claimant, Kline, who in fact represented the administrator, insisted that $5,671.05 of said balance should be allowed as of the sixth class, but one Alphonsine Sicotte, a third-class creditor of the estate, resisted that claim, and it was disallowed, as above stated. From the order refusing to allow the claim as of the sixth class, the administrator took an appeal to the circuit court, where the same order was entered as in the probate court. He then appealed to the Appellate Court for the First District, but the order and judgment of the circuit court were affirmed, and he now brings the case to this court.
WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).
In the trial of the case in the circuit court certain facts were stipulated, among others, that the only controversy is over the classification of the sum of $5,671.05-whether this sum, or any part thereof, should be allowed as a claim of the sixth class, or allowed as of the seventh class. It was also agreed in that stipulation that the deceased engaged in the business of loaning money for others as a broker or as their agent, and it appears from the evidence that for his own convenience he kept a bank account as such agent or broker, which at the time of his death amounted to the sum of $11,166.71. In that account there were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Estate of Talty
... ... See Edwards v. Lane, 331 Ill. 442, 451-52, 163 N.E. 460 (1928), citing Felsenthal v. Kline, 214 Ill. 121, 124, 73 N.E. 428 (1905). Accordingly, we find the trial court properly ordered William to reimburse the estate's attorney ... ...
-
Nels v. Reiter (In re Reiter's Estate)
...to technical or express trusts, and that it has no application to trusts which the law implies as growing out of contracts. Felsenthal v. Kline, 214 Ill. 121, ;Svanoe v. Jurgens, 144 Ill. 507, ;Ford v. First National Bank, 100 Ill.App. 70;Shipherd v. Furness, 153 Ill. 590, ;Wilson v. Kirby,......
-
Jay Yoon's Estate, In re
...or executor personally, and not for the benefit of the estate, the costs should be paid by the administrator personally. Felsenthal v. Kline, 214 Ill. 121, 73 N.E. 428." The case of Coyle v. Velie Motors Corp., 305 Ill.App. 135, 27 N.E.2d 60, which held that an attorney employed by an admin......
-
Edwards v. Lane
...or executor personally, and not for the benefit of the estate, the costs should be paid by the administrator personally. Felsenthal v. Kline, 214 Ill. 121, 73 N. E. 428. Counsel disagree as to many of the facts, and counsel for defendant in error, in attempting in his brief to inject into t......