Henry v. Henry
Decision Date | 20 June 1894 |
Citation | 15 So. 916,103 Ala. 582 |
Parties | HENRY v. HENRY ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Mobile county; W. H. Taylor, Chancellor.
Action by Thomas J. Henry against Mary Henry, executrix of the estate of Thomas Henry, deceased, and others, to recover a legacy, and for an accounting. From the decree rendered complainant appeals. Affirmed.
On May 18, 1891, the appellant, Thomas J. Henry, filed the bill in this case against John Henry, Mary Ellen Ruffin, Frank G Ruffin, Jr., her husband, and Mary Henry, the executrix of the estate of Thomas Henry, deceased. The prayer of the bill was that the chancery court would take jurisdiction of the administration of the estate of Thomas Henry, deceased, and that Mary Henry, as executrix of the estate of said Thomas Henry, deceased, be decreed to pay to the complainant the legacy bequeathed to him by the will of the decedent, and, if necessary to enforce the payment thereof, that the lands of the estate be decreed to be sold. The material allegations of the bill, and the grounds of relief prayed for, are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
On May 21, 1891, the complainant filed his petition for the appointment of a receiver for the estate of Thomas Henry deceased; and on May 26, 1891,-all of the defendants joining in such petition, and consenting, in writing, that Thomas J Henry be appointed such receiver,-the following order was made, appointing the said Thomas J. Henry as receiver, and conferring the following powers and duties upon him:
On June 1, 1891, the court rendered a decree assuming jurisdiction of the estate. On June 13, 1891, by consent of all the parties, a decree was rendered calling in all the claims against the firm of Thomas Henry & Son and against the estate of Thomas Henry, deceased; and it was ordered in said decree that all claims not filed with the register within the time allowed would be barred, and all parties in interest were given a right to file exceptions to any claims filed, and the register was directed to "ascertain the valid, subsisting claims against the said firm and said estate, the amount of the principal of each claim, and the interest on each one to the date of reference, and the date from which each bears interest." Among the claims filed under this last decree was one of John Henry, one of the defendants. There were objections to this claim interposed by the said Thomas J. Henry, individually and as receiver, and the claim was withdrawn. The report of the register of claims, filed against said estate, included the claims of Thomas J. Henry and Mary Ellen Ruffin for their legacies under the will, of $1,000 each. This report allowed no interest on said legacies, and gave no date from which interest could be computed. No exceptions were filed to this report, and it was duly confirmed by the chancellor on September 17, 1891.
In response to a motion by the receiver, filed June 15, 1891, the following order was made on June 17, 1891, enlarging the powers of the receiver:
On October 7, 1891, the chancellor confirmed the report of the register as to the necessity for a sale of the real estate of the estate of Thomas Henry, deceased, and ordered that the same be sold. On November 13, 1891, a decree was rendered ordering the receiver to file his account and vouchers for a final settlement of his receivership. On December 1, 1891 Mary Henry filed her petition, alleging that she had paid all of the debts for which her property was to be sold, and asked a rescission of the order of sale made October 7, 1891, and that her property be restored to her, together with the leases, insurance policies, etc., relating thereto. The said Mary Henry also filed on December 24, 1891, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dalliba v. Winschell
... ... more than a simple narrative of his acts, and on account of ... his receipts and disbursements." (Henry v ... Henry, 103 Ala. 582, 15 So. 916; Gunn v. Ewan, ... 93 F. 80, 35 C.C.A. 213; Olson v. State Bank, 72 ... Minn. 320, 75 N.W. 378; Sowles v ... ...
-
Carter v. Mitchell
...date when we issued our rule nisi, and for services in making his settlement and the hearings before the court on such settlement. Henry v. Henry, supra. Nor do we think receiver should have compensation for services rendered after our rule nisi was effective extending thence to the time wh......
-
King v. Premo & King, Inc.
...duties, which may and should be performed by the receiver himself, and are not the subject of an allowance of counsel fees. Henry v. Henry, 103 Ala. 582, 15 So. 916; Saulsbury v. Lady Ensley Coal, Iron & Railroad Co., 110 Ala. 585, 20 So. 72, where the Court held a receiver is not entitled ......
-
Richardson v. Tyson
...v. Insurance Co., 136 U. S. 287, 294, 10 Sup. Ct. 1019, 34 L. Ed. 408;Cole v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 86, 49 Am. Rep. 78;Henry v. Henry, 103 Ala. 582, 15 South. 916. We cannot doubt that a situation presented itself in this case which made it very seemly and prudent that the guardian ad lit......