McKeithen v. Rich
| Decision Date | 28 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 422 |
| Citation | 204 Ala. 588,86 So. 377 |
| Parties | McKEITHEN v. RICH et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lowndes County; A.E. Gamble, Judge.
Suit by Mildred R. McKeithen against Mildred B. Rich and others. From decree sustaining demurrers to the bill, complainant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Rushton Williams & Crenshaw, of Montgomery, for appellant.
John R Tyson, of Montgomery, for appellees.
This bill was filed by the appellant, a legatee and devisee under the will of W.P. Russell, deceased, against the administrator de bonis non, with the will annexed, of the estate of said W.P. Russell, Mildred B. Rich, the widow of said Russell, and former executrix of the will, and the other legatees and devisees under the will, to remove the administration of the estate from the probate court into the circuit court sitting as a court of equity, for further administration.
The bill shows that Mildred B. (Russell) Rich was originally a devisee under the will, and she with one McPherson were nominated as executors, and relieved of giving bond, or accounting, or making settlement of the estate in court; that upon probation of the will she, as the widow, filed her dissent, and had her dower interest ascertained and set apart. Mrs. Rich and McPherson, however, qualified as executors, but upon being cited by the probate court to make settlement of their accounts, they resigned, and made final settlement of their accounts up to the time of such resignation, and thereupon W.P. Russell was appointed and qualified as administrator de bonis non with the will annexed.
In the settlement of her accounts upon her resignation as executrix Mrs. Rich was allowed a credit of $1,800, representing an expenditure made by her for installing a water-works system in, and the enlargement of, the dwelling house, which the bill avers were unnecessary and unauthorized expenditures, and were not proper charges against the estate. The bill further alleges that objections were filed to the allowance of this credit by the devisees, including complainant, and the guardian ad litem appointed by the court to represent the interest of the minors; that she (Mrs. Rich) procured the withdrawal of these objections and the allowance of said items on the faith of an agreement between the objectors and herself; that if said objections were withdrawn and the credit allowed, she would convey to the devisees under the will all her right, title, and interest in and to said dwelling house; that she has failed and refused to execute said deed, and the bill as amended avers that Mrs. Rich, at the time of entering into such agreement, did not intend to execute said deed. Among other things, the bill prays that this item of account, allowed as a credit on said settlement, be re-examined and disallowed.
The general equity of the bill is not questioned, but demurrers were interposed to several sections thereof on the theory, no doubt, that the decree of the probate court entered on the settlement of the accounts of Mrs. Rich is final and conclusive as between the parties, and cannot be impeached or reopened except for fraud in its procurement.
It is firmly settled by the decisions of this court, as well as by statutes, that an heir or distributee of an estate, or a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinson v. Naugher
...Ala. 404, 85 So. 709; Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 87 So. 545; Crawford v. Carlisle, 206 Ala. 379, 89 So. 565, 568(1); McKeithen v. Rich, 204 Ala. 588, 86 So. 377; Dent v. Foy, 206 Ala. 454, 90 So. 317. Recent decisions of this court are to the effect that the administration and settleme......
-
Drinkard v. Perry
... ... there can be no splitting up of such administration, any more ... than any other cause of action ... "' (quoting ... McKeithen v. Rich , 204 Ala. 588, 589, 86 So. 377, ... (1920)(emphasis added))). Additionally, in his special ... concurrence, Justice Bolin aptly ... ...
-
Allen v. the EState C. Juddine
...and there can be no splitting up of such administration, any more than any other cause of action ....’ ” (quoting McKeithen v. Rich, 204 Ala. 588, 589, 86 So. 377, 378 (1920)(emphasis added))). Additionally, in his special concurrence, Justice Bolin aptly observes the relevance of authority......
-
Dent v. Foy
...must proceed to a final and complete settlement." To like effect is the language of this court in the more recent case of McKeithen v. Rich, 204 Ala. 588, 86 So. 377. same principle was also recognized in Eastburn v. Canizas, 193 Ala. 575, [1] where the legatees under a will sought to have ......