Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

45 Ala. 516

Hubbard v. Smith

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1871

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1871-01-15

Tried before Hon. Willis C. Wood. This was an application of the minor heirs of one Smith, by their next friend, for the removal of the appellant as administrator de bonis non of the estate of said Smith, on the ground, among others, that he had never filed an inventory of the assets and property of said estate which had come into his hands, although eighteen months have elapsed siqee his appointment; and that he had failed to make any settlement of said administration, as…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1987

7 state decisions

20187118801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

B. F. S AFFÓLD, J,

¶1The application for the removal of the administrator was made to the court from which the letters issued, by the-distributees. It was in writing, spec-’ ified two of the statutory grounds for removal, and was verified by the oath of the next friend of the minor distributees. — Rev. Code, 2019, 2020, 2017. It was therefore not subject to a demurrer. If the minors had no guardian, they were obliged to resort to a next friend.

¶2It appears from the defense of the administrator, that the estate was quite small, consisting only of about three hundred and eighty dollars in money, and a note, received from the administrator-in-chief. He had sued on the note, and filed a bill to foreclose a mortgage given to secure its payment, and was proceeding with as much diligence as he could to collect it. In addition to this, he had never been cited by the court to make any settlement; but, on the contrary, the grand-mother of the children and their uncle, who had charge of them, and who is their next friend, had urged him to continue in the administration, and to conclude it with as, little expense as possible. He ought to have filed an inventory, as any other administrator is required to do, and to have made annual settlements. But his mere omission to do so, under the evidence, was not sufficient to justify his removal.

¶3The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

/45/ala/516 · .json · Public domain