Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Miss. 715

Langan v. Bowman

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1849

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1849-01-15

James R. Burrus, judge. Michael Langan and his wife on the one side, and Claiborne Bowman on the other, petitioned the probate court for the administration de bonis non of the estate of Nicholas O’Reilly, deceased. By agreement between the parties, the facts stated in the respective petitions were admitted ás true.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the same rule prevails, where the parties claim the right to administer in a representative character.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 537 So. 2d 1337 - Matter of Estate of Moreland

“that the party entitled to the estate is entitled to the administration,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 537 So. 2d 1337 - Matter of Estate of Moreland

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1849-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 2003

3 state decisions

1018491850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Clayton

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This is a contest for the rights of administration upon the estate of Nicholas O’Reilly, deceased. Bowman claimed the right to administer, by virtue of his guardianship of the children of one of the brothers of the decedent, and who are distributees of the estate.

¶3Langan and wife claim, bécause they are guardians of three of five children left by another brother, also distributees of the estate, and because the wife was formerly the widow of first last mentioned brother, and because they are also creditors of the estate. The court below granted the administration to Bowman.

¶4It seems to'be settled that the party entitled to the estate is entitled to the administration, and that where there are several distributees, the one entitled to the largest share in the estate is entitled to the administration. It is also settled that the same rule prevails, where the parties claim the right to administer in a representative character. Thus, where four grandchildren were entitled to an estate, one of whom was of age, and the other three were represented by their mother as their guardian, it was determined that she was entitled to the preference, because of the preponderance of the interest which she represented. 1 Williams’ Ex. 281; 1 Lomax, Ex. 142.

¶5Bowman was the guardian of all the children of one of the brothers, Langan and wife were guardians of only three out of the five children of the other brother; Bowman therefore represented the larger interest.

¶6The fact that Langan was a relation of the decedent makes no difference, because the relationship was so remote that it gave him no interest in the distribution. A party is entitled to preference in the grant of administration, only in proportion to his interest in the distribution. Neither does the circumstance *718that they are creditors, add any strength to their claim. According to some authorities, it is rather adverse to, than in favor of their pretension. 1 Lomax, Ex. 139. Creditors are by the statute postponed, in the grant of administration, ,to the next of kin.

¶7We see no reason to disturb the action of the court below, and direct its order to be affirmed.

/20/miss/715 · .json · Public domain