Sandifer v. Sandifer, 41258
| Decision Date | 26 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 41258,41258 |
| Citation | 237 Miss. 464,115 So.2d 46 |
| Parties | Bishop W. SANDIFER, Executor of the Estate of Edward L. Sandifer, Deceased, v. Mrs. Audrey SANDIFER. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Wm. Harold Cox, Jackson, for appellant.
Pierce & Waller, Jackson, for appellee.
The appellant, Bishop W. Sandifer, executor of the estate of Edward L. Sandifer, deceased, appeals from two decrees of the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi.
The record discloses that on October 27, 1952, Edward L. Sandifer, brother of the appellant, executed a last will and testament wherein he left all of his estate to the appellant, Bishop W. Sandifer, and appointed him as executor of the will without bond. Thereafter, on May 21, 1957, the decedent, Edward L. Sandifer, married Mrs. Audrey Sandifer, and they lived together as husband and wife until his death on October 29, 1958. On November 25, 1958, the last will and testament of the deceased was probated in common form and letters testamentary were issued to the appellant as executor of the will. On January 6, 1959, the appellee, Mrs. Audrey Sandifer, widow of decedent, renounced the will above referred to and on the same date filed her petition for allowance of one year's support. On January 8, 1959, the appellee filed petition to set aside the last will and testament of the deceased. On February 11, 1959, the appellee filed her petition for the appointment of a temporary administrator. Thereafter, on the same date, a hearing was held by the court on the petition for the widow's allowance and on the petition for appointment of a temporary administrator. The court allowed the appellee a year's support in the amount of $2,500, and also appointed a temporary administrator and removed the appellant as the executor of the estate of Edward L. Sandifer, deceased.
The appellant assigns as error on this appeal that the court erred in the removal of the executor and in appointing a temporary administrator, and that the court erred in awarding the appellee one year's support in the amount of $2,500.
The appellant first argues that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the petition for the appointment of a temporary administrator for the reason that no process was served on the appellant, and that he was without power to remove the executor. No process was issued or served on the appellant. The record discloses that the hearing was held on February 11, 1959. Counsel for appellant objected to the hearing but not on the grounds he was entitled to five days' notice, but because he had been tied up with other matters and for that reason had not had time to prepare his defense. The record further discloses that counsel for appellant stated in the record that the respondent joined issued in short with the petition for appointment of a temporary administrator. The record further discloses that counsel for appellant took part in the trial, examined the witnesses, and put on the appellant in his defense to the motion. We are of the opinion that the appellant having taken issue with the appellee and participated in the hearing waived the service of process. Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice (2d ed.), Section 240.
In Hatchcock v. Owen, 44 Miss. 799, the Court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurst v. Southwest Mississippi Legal Services Corp.
...Inc. v. Love, 361 So.2d 324 (Miss.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1073, 99 S.Ct. 845, 59 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979); Sandifer v. Sandifer, 237 Miss. 464, 115 So.2d 46 (1959). By appearing on September 20, 1989, Burnett subjected herself to the jurisdiction of the Pike County Circuit Court and waived a......
-
Parker v. Benoist
...and this Court “should not reverse his action unless there is clear evidence of abuse of that discretion.” Sandifer v. Sandifer, 237 Miss. 464, 469, 115 So.2d 46, 48 (1959). On appeal, Bronwyn essentially reiterates the facts that she believes necessitated a finding by the chancellor that a......
-
Watson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Watson), Docket No. 31911-85.
...her husband's will, the chancellor may, within his discretion, provide for the allowance of one year's support. Sandifer v. Sandifer, 237 Miss. 464, 115 So.2d 46 (1959). Petitioner contends that Miss. Code Ann. section 91-7-135 (1972) gives the decedent's widow an absolute unconditional rig......
-
Parker v. Benoist
...and this Court "should not reverse his action unless there is clear evidence of abuse of that discretion." Sandifer v. Sandifer, 237 Miss. 464, 469, 115 So. 2d 46, 48 (1959). On appeal, Bronwyn essentially reiterates the facts that she believes necessitated a finding by the chancellor that ......