State ex rel. Hunter v. Maulsby
| Decision Date | 31 October 1873 |
| Citation | 53 Mo. 500 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI to the use of ISAAC HUNTER, Adm'r de bonis non, of estate of ROBERT B. HILL, deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. L. W. MAULSBY, et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to New Madrid Circuit Court.
Louis Houck, for Plaintiff in Error.
I. This is not a “demand against an estate,” but a demand in favor of an estate; and hence, this cause does not fall within the words of Sess. Acts, 1865-6, p. 85.
The Circuit Court based its decision upon Dodson vs. Scroggs, 47 Mo., 285, but that case does not go so far.
II. The judgment should have been against the administrator as such. (Ranney vs. Thomas, 45 Mo., 111.)
R. A. Hatcher, for Defendants in Error.
This action was brought in the New Madrid Circuit Court on the bond of defendant, Maulsby, as administrator of the estate of Robert B. Hill, deceased, and the other defendants as his sureties thereon.
There is no question raised in the record of the case, as to the sufficiency of the petition, provided the court had jurisdiction.
The defendants appeared and filed their motion in the court below to dismiss the suit for the reason, that the Circuit Court of New Madrid County had no jurisdiction of the cause. The motion is as follows:
“Defendants move the court to dismiss this cause for the reason that this court has no jurisdiction of said cause, the urisdiction being in the Probate Court.”
This motion was sustained by the court and final judgment rendered against the plaintiff, which judgment was a personal judgment rendered against Isaac Hunter, for whose use the suit was brought, for the costs.
The only question presented by the parties for the consideration of this court, is whether the Circuit Court has any jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action? The motion to dismiss asserts that the Probate Court of New Madrid County has exclusive jurisdiction over this action.
By the 6th Section of the Act of the General Assembly, establishing Probate Courts in certain counties, in which the County of New Madrid is included, (Session Acts, 1865-6, p. 85,) it is provided among other things, that the Probate Court of New Madrid County shall have exclusive jurisdiction in said County “to hear and determine all disputes and controversies between Masters and their Apprentices; to hear and determine all suits and other proceedings instituted against executors and administrators upon any demand against the estate of their testator or intestate, subject to appeal in all cases to the Circuit Court in such manner as may be provided by law, etc.”
The case under consideration is neither a suit nor proceeding instituted against an executor or administrator upon any demand against the estate of his testator or intestate.
The suit is commenced against living men to recover a personal judgment against them for the breach of a contract entered into by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Walsh v. Farrar
...of a judgment against, it must be de bonis testatoris. Ranney v. Thomas, 45 Mo. 112. See also Wooldridge v. McDonald, 15 Mo. 470; State v. Maulsby, 53 Mo. 500; Ross v. Alleman, 60 Mo. 269. Patrick Roddy's judgment, therefore, was against Dailey as administrator. This was not a demand which ......
-
State ex rel. Walsh v. Dailey
...45 Mo. 112. And in the event of judgment against him, it must be de bonis testatoris.-- Wooldridge v. McDonald, 15 Mo. 470; The State to use v. Maulsby, 53 Mo. 500; Ross v. Allman, 60 Mo. 269. And such a judgment could not be proved against the estate.-- Presbyterian Church v. McElhinney, 6......
-
Strother v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company
...to be satisfied out of the assets of the estate. [Wooldridge v. McDonald, 15 Mo. 470; Ranney v. Thomas, 45 Mo. 111, State to use, etc., v. Maulsby, 53 Mo. 500.] a general rule administrators prosecuting actions in their representative characters, are not required to give bonds for costs or ......
-
State ex rel. Longdon v. Shelby
...court had none. This was a suit against “living men,” and not a demand against the estate of a decedent. Therefore, the case of State v. Maulsby, 53 Mo. 500, applies, and, therefore, also, that of Dodson v. Scroggs, 47 Mo. 285, does not apply. State v. Stafford, 73 Mo. 658.IV. Longdon was t......