Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Ark. 347

Mahan v. Owen

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 15, 1861

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1861-05-15

<p>The affidavit to a claim against the estate of a deceased person need not be signed by the affiant. (Gill vs. Ward, 22 Arle.)</p> <p>Where neither the certificate, the caption nor the body of the transcript of a decree shows what court rendered the decree, it is no evidence.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1977

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice English

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Mahan presented to the probate court of White county, for allowance against the estate of John Owen, deceased, a transcript of what purported to be a decree of some court, in favor of Mahan, against Owen, for a sum of money.

¶3Mary A. Owen, the administratrix of John Owen, contested the claim, it was disallowed, and on appeal by Mahan to the circuit court, the judgment of the probate court was affirmed.

¶4It seems that the probate court rejected the demand, because the affidavit was not subscribed by Mahan,, and the transcript was not properly authenticated.

¶5The first objection was not well taken, as held in Gill et al. vs. Ward et al. 22 Ark.

¶6Passing over the informality of the certificate of authentication, attached to the transcript of the decree, in other respects, neither the certificate, the caption, nor the body of the transcript, shows what court rendered the decree.

¶7For this cause the transcript was properly excluded, and the claim disallowed.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

/23/ark/347 · .json · Public domain