Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Miss. 786

Torrence v. Kerr

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1854

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1854-10-15

In error from the probate court of Yalobusha; Hon. T. A. Cheves, judge of the probate court of Yalobusha county. The probate court of Yalobusha county, on due notice given, allowed the final account of Thomas Carbry, executor of William Kerr, deceased, .on the 12th of November, 1850.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1871

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Fisher

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The appellee by her next friend filed her petition in the probate court of Yalobusha county, against the appellants, as administrators of the estate of Thomas Carbry, deceased, to have revived and duly enforced a certain decree made by said court at the November term, 1850, thereof, in her favor, against the said Carbry on his final settlement, as executor of the last will and testament of William Kerr, deceased, father of the petitioner.

¶3It was objected in the court below, both by demurrer and plea to the scire facias, that the decree was not final, and could not therefore be revived. The court overruled this objection, and made an order reviving the decree against the appellants, as administrators of said Carbry, which order, in our opinion, is entirely free from objection. The decree was made upon Carbry’s own account, and- all parties were at h,is instance brought before the court, to show cause why it should not be made, just as it was made. It was intended to ascertain the amount of his indebtedness to the distributees of Kerr’s estate. This the decree in the clearest manner does; and it goes further and orders the sum so ascertained to be paid to said distributees. It is in every respect a decree which might have been enforced either by execution or by attachment, which is the best test of the finality of the decree.

¶4If any questions are left open for the future action of the court, they are not such as affect the distributive share of the petitioner in her father’s estate, or which tend in the least to diminish or increase the amount of her share thus ascertained, but only such as relate to its payment or off-set of the decree, by permitting the executor either to settle with the petitioner’s guardian, or bringing these questions of payment or off-set again before the court. These questions have no connection whatever with the decree itself, or the amount decreed. The court, after examining the executor’s account, said to him, “ You, by ,your own showing, are indebted to the distributees in a certain sum, and judgment is pronounced against you for this sum, and will be enforced according to law, or the discretion of the court as regulated by law. If, however, you can get the distributees or their *788guardians to agree to any payments or off-set, you are at liberty to do so. A right which he unquestionably had without the order of the court, as parties may contract in all cases, and about all matters not prohibited by law.

¶5Decree affirmed.

/27/miss/786 · .json · Public domain