Wilkerson v. Gordon

Decided November 15, 1886

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1886-11-15

Hon. J. A. Williams, Judge. The affidavit was in due form. There was no testimony showing when Urie died, and the affidavit may have been made after his death. The presumption is that it was made after his death, unless there was proof to the contrary, and there was none. Secs. 10% and 103, Mans/., Dig. were complied with by appellant. All that is required, is that the affidavit be made before presentation to the administrator.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1936

3 state decisions

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 →

Cockrill, C. J.

¶1The requirement of the statute for authenticating claims against the estates of deceased persons is not fulfilled by an affidavit made at some period in the-lifetime of the decedent, to the efiect that he was justly indebted to the affiant in a sum stated, and that nothing had. been paid or delivered toward the satisfaction of the-demand.

¶2Such an affidavit might be true when made, but not true-if applied to the facts existing at the date of the debtor’s, death.

¶3The affidavit required is the foundation for legal proceedings against the estate in the probate court, and the-claimant is not entitled to participate in the assets without' it. Birnie v. Imboden, 14 Ark., 237; Walker v. Byers, ib., 246; Alter v. Kinsworthy, 30 ib., 756.

¶4But there is no estate to proceed against nor anything-over which the probate court can assume jurisdiction until, the death of the debtor, and prior to that time no steps-can be legally taken in the matter-.

¶5Affirmed.