Snodgrass v. Snodgrass

• Decision Date: 04 April 1912
• Citation: 58 So. 199,176 Ala. 282
• Parties: SNODGRASS v. SNODGRASS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

58 So. 199

176 Ala. 282

SNODGRASS v. SNODGRASS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 4, 1912

Appeal from Chancery Court, Jackson County; W. H. Simpson Chancellor.

Bill by John D. Snodgrass, as guardian of J. T. Snodgrass, an incompetent, against Eliza A. Snodgrass, administratrix of Nathaniel H. Snodgrass, deceased. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The case made by the bill is that in 1880 John Snodgrass died intestate in Jackson county, and that Hamlin Caldwell and William E. Snodgrass were appointed administrators of his estate, and that after setting apart the property exempt to the widow and paying the debts of the estate they reported the estate solvent, and obtained a decree ordering distribution, and under said decree they distributed $14,000 giving $2,800 to the widow and $2,400 to the heirs each. It is further alleged that the administrators never assumed control over the real estate, except to rent it out, pending their administration, and that in February, 1889, they procured their discharge as such administrators. It is then alleged that the real estate is still owned by the surviving heirs of decedent as tenants in common, except that James D Snodgrass has sold and conveyed his fifth interest to N.H Snodgrass. The heirs of the estate are then set out, and it is alleged that the widow survived John Snodgrass for about 18 months, then died, leaving her estate clear of debt, and that her estate was divided equally among the five heirs that in November, 1910, N.H. Snodgrass died intestate in said above-named county, and left a large estate of personal and real property, and that his widow, Eliza A. Snodgrass, who is named as respondent here, was appointed his administrator. The bill then sets out his heirs, with their ages and places of residence. It is then averred that John T. Snodgrass, in whose behalf this bill is filed, is 54 years old, and from the time of his infancy until the filing of this bill has been an imbecile and mentally incapable of making contracts or managing or controlling his property. It is then alleged that for some time William E. Snodgrass, by mutual consent managed and controlled his property, paying the state and county taxes, renting out and receiving the annual rent, and furnishing John T. with clothing, board, and small sums of money, until December 15, 1886, by mutual consent and agreement entered into by William E., John T., and Nathaniel H. Snodgrass, all of whom were 21 years old. William E. Snodgrass voluntarily resigned his agency and trust of the estate of John T., and Nathaniel H. Snodgrass undertook the management and control, and did assume the management and control of the property and estate of said John T., and continued to do so from that date until the date of his death, in November, 1910. The bill then sets out the acts and doings of the said Nathaniel H. relative to the management and control of the property of John T., a summary of which sufficiently appears in the opinion. It is then alleged that on the 30th day of December, 1910, said John T. Snodgrass was declared to be of unsound mind on proper proceedings instituted in the probate court, and a judgment to that end was entered, and complainant was appointed the guardian of the said non compos and of his estate. The bill then sets out the various items of property belonging to John T., and either used, expended, or consumed by the said N.H. Snodgrass. The demurrers raise the proposition that it is shown that John T. Snodgrass was an imbecile, and therefore incapable of appointing an agent or trustee, that the bill shows that it seeks an accounting for the acts of an alleged trustee, that there was no such agent or trustee, and that the several demands set up in the bill are barred by description. Demurrers were also filed to the several ...