Meek v. Nancy A. Allison Administrators
| Decision Date | 31 January 1873 |
| Citation | 1873 WL 8123,67 Ill. 46 |
| Parties | BAZIL MEEK, Administrator, etc.v.NANCY A. ALLISON et al. Administrators, etc. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of La Salle county; the Hon. E. S. LELAND, Judge, presiding.
This was a claim originally filed in the county court of Peoria county, by the appellant, administrator, with the will annexed, of Daniel Allison, deceased, against the estate of Isaac M. Allison, deceased, and taken by appeal to the circuit court of Peoria county, and from that court, by change of venue, to La Salle county.
The cause was tried upon an agreed state of facts, by the court, without a jury. The court below rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $1,089.52, the amount admitted to have been in the hands of Isaac M. Allison at the time of his death, and rejected the balance of the claim. The appellees filed cross-errors in this court, among which it was assigned for error that the court below erred in not deducting from the sum in the hands of Isaac M. Allison, as administrator of the estate of said Daniel Allison, deceased, the amount of attorneys' fees paid by him in resisting the probate of the will.
Mr. D. MCCULLOCH, for the appellant.
Messrs. JOHNSON & HOPKINS, for the appellees.
In April, 1864, Daniel Allison died, having left a last will and testament. In May following the will was presented for probate and rejected, and no appeal having been taken from the judgment of the court rejecting the will, Isaac M. Allison was, in July, duly appointed administrator, and letters were issued to him.
A day for the presentation of claims was fixed upon; debts were allowed and paid; a partial distribution was made to the heirs, and a report submitted to the court and approved.
After these acts the executor named in the will presented it for probate, and, after protracted litigation, it was admitted to probate in 1868.
Isaac M. Allison contested the probate of the will, and paid $511 as fees to attorneys. He was interested in opposing the will because he was greatly benefited by its rejection.
He having died, his estate is charged with the amount paid to the heirs of the testator; and it is contended that there was a misapplication of the funds, as his letters were void ab initio.
It is agreed that there is an amount in the hands of appellees, as administrators of Isaac Allison, even if there was no misapplication of the moneys, and interest is claimed upon this amount. On the part of appellees it is insisted that the amount paid for attorneys' fees in contesting the will should be deducted from the undistributed amount.
The letters issued to Isaac M. Allison were not void--only voidable. This is not a direct proceeding to test the validity of the letters; but the acts of the administrator are collaterally questioned. The probate court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, and, upon proper representations having been made, full authority to issue the letters. They must, under such circumstances, be regarded as a protection to the administrator.
We shall not follow the line of argument on the part of counsel, and inquire as to the rule of the common law in such a case. We are of opinion that the question presented is settled by the provisions of our statute and the decisions of this court.
When a petition was presented and all the facts required by the statute recited therein, the court obtained jurisdiction to issue letters. The administrator was, then, at least an officer de facto, and appointed to perform certain specified duties. It was his duty to administer the estate according to law; to pay debts and to make distribution of the remainder of the assets in his hands to the heirs. He was liable upon his bond for the non-performance of the duties imposed upon him. It is alike unreasonable and in violation of every principle of right and justice to hold him liable for acts which were in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. Brown
...and no principle of equity will, as we conceive, permit the trust fund to be diminished to pay the expenses of such litigation. Meek v. Allison, 67 Ill. 46, 51. equally strong equity exists against the allowance of the costs in the appellate and supreme courts, and the charges for printing ......
-
Rice v. Tilton
... ... 297; Robbins v. Wolcott, 27 ... Conn. 234; Morrow v. Allison, 39 Ala. 73; Matter ... of Bailey, 27 Hun, 477; Withers Appeal, 13 Pa ... money expended for the benefit of the estate. ( Meek v ... Allison, 67 Ill. 46; Brown v. Hill, 27 Miss ... 44; Schwecke ... Executors and administrators are not usually learned in the ... law, and, as probate proceedings are ... ...
-
In re Workman's Estate
...disbursements and commissions, so far as the same are allowable by law to an executor or administrator with the will annexed." Meek v. Allison, 67 Ill. 46, was a proceeding by executor named in the will to gain an accounting from an administrator who had been appointed before the validity o......
-
Carpenter v. Calvert
...contest from the estate: Brown v. Vineyard, 1 Bailey's Eq. 460; Humper's App. 3 Watts and Serg. 401; Rogers, App. 13 Pa. St. 569; Meek v. Allison, 67 Ill. 46; Andrews' Ex'r v. Andrews' Adm'r, 7 Ohio St. 143; 9 Watts and Serg. 98; 13 Pa. St. 569; 10 B. Mon. 229; 7 Pa. St. 455; 1 Strobh. 369.......