In re Reynolds' Estate
| Decision Date | 11 October 1915 |
| Citation | 95 A. 498 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re REYNOLDS' ESTATE. |
Exceptions from Franklin County Court; Zed S. Stanton, Judge.
The executrix of Sarah C. Reynolds applied for an order to sell the real estate of her decedent to pay debts. To an order directing a sale of all the real estate of decedent, affirmed upon appeal to the county court, Nancy M. Stevens, executrix of Mrs. Reynolds, and the executrix of the estate of Mr. Reynolds except. Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Argued before MUNSON, C. J., and WATSON, HASELTON, POWERS, and TAYLOR, JJ.
C. G. Austin & Sons, of St. Albans, for appellant. H. Elmer Wheeler and Elmer Johnson, both of St. Albans, for appellee.
The case shown by the record is an appeal from an order of the probate court granting to the executrix of Sarah C. Reynolds' estate a, license to sell all of the real estate belonging thereto. The case made in argument requires a construction of the will of Mrs. Reynolds, and a determination of certain questions regarding the law of abatement of legacies, and some others.
It appears that Mrs. Reynolds died testate, leaving a farm on which she and her husband resided. This farm consisted of several parcels, and different portions were subject to certain mortgages. Abbie A. Morrill is her surviving executrix. The personal property having been applied to the payment of the debts of the estate, and having proved to be insufficient for that purpose, the executrix made application to the probate court for license to sell the real estate for the purpose of raising money to liquidate the unpaid debts and expenses of administration, therein representing that, while it would not be necessary to take all the real estate for this purpose, a part thereof could not be sold without injury to those interested in the remainder. The probate court found the facts according to these allegations, and granted the license as prayed for. No question is made as to the regularity of these proceedings. An appeal was taken, and the county court found the facts to be as represented in the application, and affirmed the order. The case comes here on exceptions filed by the executrix of Mrs. Reynolds, and by the executrix of the estate of Mr. Reynolds, who was a legatee under the will.
As already suggested, the only question presented by the record is the legality of the order granting the license to sell all the real estate. The finding is that a part of this estate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re James
...in issue in the case before it." To the same effect are Lindsay v. Town of Brattleboro et al., 96 Vt. 503, 120 A. 888; In re Reynold's Estate, 89 Vt. 224, 95 A. 498; In re Segur's Will, 71 Vt. 224, 44 A. 342; State v. Webster, 80 Vt. 391, 67 A. While the Commission made no express finding e......
-
Staab v. Northfield Sav. Bank
...findings of the trial court, and this Court will not decide suppositional questions, even if submitted by agreement. In re Reynolds Estate, 89 Vt. 224, 225, 95 A. 498 (1915). Judgments affirmed. Remanded for the purpose of affixing a redemption LARROW, J., took no part in this opinion, bein......
-
Johnson v. Saindow
...entertain moot cases. In re James, 99 Vt. 477, 129 A. 175; Lindsay v. Town of Brattleboro et al., 96 Vt. 503, 120 A. 888; In re Reynolds' Estate, 89 Vt. 224, 95 A. 498; Alfred v. Alfred, 87 Vt. 542, 90 A. 580; State v. Webster, 80 Vt. 391, 67 A. 1098. No stipulation of parties or counsel, w......