Huston v. King
| Decision Date | 24 February 1919 |
| Docket Number | 20011 |
| Citation | 80 So. 779,119 Miss. 347 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | HUSTON v. KING |
1 RECEIVERS. Decedent's estate. Misconduct of personal representative.
Our statutes contemplate that the estate of a decedent shall be administered by an executor or administrator, and not by a receiver. If an executor or administrator is derelict in his duty, the remedy is to have him either disciplined by the court or discharged and another appointed.
2 PARTNERSHIP. Surviving partner as administrator. Receiver.
Where a surviving partner who was administering on the partnership estate of a deceased partner, refused to obey the order of the court appointing a receiver and directing him to turn over to such receiver all property in his hands belonging to the estate of the decedent. In such case, the surviving partner is not entitled to damages because of the appointment of the receiver since while such order was erroneous, it was not void, and until it was revoked, it should have been obeyed by all parties affected thereby.
3. PARTNERSHIP. Appointment of receiver. Administrator of surviving partner.
The effect of the order appointing a receiver made before the receiver was permitted to enter upon the discharge of his duties suspending his powers until the administrator could be heard in opposition to his appointment, rendered the procedure herein equivalent to that contemplated by section 625, Code 1896 (Hemingway's Code, section 385), which provides for the appointment of a receiver after notice to the opposing party.
4. APPEAL AND ERROR. Review. Questions presented.
A question is not presented on appeal for review where the court below was not requested to act on such question.
5. APPEAL AND ERROR. Review. Subsequent orders.
On an appeal from an order of court discharging a receiver and awarding damages, a subsequent order of the court cannot be reviewed on appeal.
HON. A. Y. WOODWARD, Chancellor.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Neshoba county, HON. A. Y. WOODWARD, Chancellor.
Suit by H. A. Huston, administrator of the estate of A. M. Byrd, against J. D. King, administrator of the interest of A. M. Byrd, deceased, in the partnership property of King & Byrd. From a decree denying the relief sought, and awarding damages, to defendant, complainant appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Decree affirmed in part and reversed in part.
J. N. Flowers, G. E. Wilson and Byrd & Byrd, for appellant.
O. A. Luckett, for appellee.
We have not undertaken to determine the truth of the charges made by the appellant against King for the reason that the petition prayed for King's removal as administrator, and for the appointment of a receiver to wind up the estate, which prayer should not have been granted even if the charges made against King are true, for the reason that our statutes contemplate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Merchants' & Marine Bank of Pascagoula
... ... Y. & ... M. V. R. R. Co. v. Sebulsky, 109 Miss. 228; ... Devitt v. Poster, 159 Miss. 687; Houston v ... King, 119 Miss. 347; Williams v. Butts, 124 ... Miss. 661; Vicksburg Mfg. Co. v. Jaffray Const. Co., ... 94 Miss. 282; Anderson v. Maxwell, 94 ... ...
-
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Merchants' & Marine Bank Of Pascagoula
...been well taken if raised in the court below. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Sebulsky, 109 Miss. 228; Devitt v. Foster, 159 Miss. 687; Houston v. King, 119 Miss. 347; Williams Butts, 124 Miss. 661; Vicksburg Mfg. Co. v. Jaffray Const. Co., 94 Miss. 282; Anderson v. Maxwell, 94 Miss. 138; Adams v. ......
-
McLendon v. McGee
... ... & M. 9; Adams v. Clarksdale, ... 48 So. 242, 95 Miss. 88; Miss. Valley Trust Co. v ... Brewer, 128 So. 83, 157 Miss. 890; Hutson v ... King, 80 So. 779, 119 Miss. 347; City of Biloxi v ... Trustees of Miss. Annual Conference Endowment Fund, 173 ... So. 797, 179 Miss. 47; Miss. Power ... ...
-
Pascagoula Sch. Dist. v. Tucker
...established rule in this state that a question not raised in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.”); Huston v. King, 119 Miss. 347, 80 So. 779, 779 (1919); Alexander v. Eastland, 37 Miss. 554, 8 George 554, 1859 WL 5348, at *3 (Miss.Err. & App.1859). ¶ 39. Relatedly, this Court......