Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Ala. 513

Watson v. Hutto

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1855

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1855-06-15

Thu record in this case shows these facts : On the final settlement of the estate of David Watson, by Solomon Hutto his administrator, on the 10th August, 1853, a decree was rendered in favor of Mrs. Elizabeth Watson, the widow of the intestate, for $514' 15, as her distributive share of the estate ; but as this decree is nowhere set out in the record, its terms cannot bo stated.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1919

5 state decisions

201855186018701880189019001910decided

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 →

RICE, J.

¶1The decree of the probate court, on the final settlement of the estate, adjudging to the appellant her distributive share, is as conclusive as a decree in chancery, or a judgment of a circuit court. Where the defendant in such decree, after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered, makes a motion to enter satisfaction of it, and to quash the execution issued under it, upon grounds which go only to matters behind the decree, the motion cannot be granted, although such grounds may be true in point of fact. — Slatter v. Glover, 14 Ala. R. 648 ; Marshal v. Candler, 21 ib. 490 ; Burt v. Hughes, 11 ib. 571; Powell v. Washington, 15 ib. 803; Bondurant v. Thompson, 15ib. 202.

¶2We deem it unnecessary to decide any other question presented by the record, as what- we have above decided will likely put an end to the motion. For the ei'ror of the court below in granting the motion, its decree is reversed, and the cause remanded.

/27/ala/513 · .json · Public domain