Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

88 Mo. App. 534

Redman v. Adams

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 23, 1901

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1901-04-23

— Hon. J. L. Fori, Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The probate court of Butler county, having in charge the estate of J. E. Adams, upon the second annual settlement of his executrix, Martha Adams, ordered her to sell the land of her testator for the payment of debts. After a sale in pursuance of said.order, one Loid Redman, made an affidavit that he was a creditor of said estate, and prayed an appeal from said order of sale of the circuit court, which was granted.

Relies on Estes v. Nell · Turley v. Edwards · 11 Mo. App. 114 - Bauer v. Cabanne

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1901-04-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1948

3 state decisions

1019011910192019301940decided

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 →

BOND, J.

¶1The contention is, that inasmuch as the interlocutory order of sale made hy the probate court was one from which any creditor of the estate was entitled to an appeal to the circuit court, therefore, the latter court erred in dismissing the cause for want of jurisdiction. The statute applicable to such orders unquestionably affords the right to an appeal therefrom to any creditor. R. S. 1899, sec. 278. The difficulty, however, in applying it to this appeal arises from the *536fact that there is no evidence in the record showing that appellant sustained the relation (alleged in his affidavit), of creditor to the estate in respondent’s hands, and was therefore entitled to such an appeal. The affidavit did not conclusively establish such status, and when the cause was tried in the circuit court, evidence was adduced upon which that court based its dismissal of the suit. As appellant has not brought that evidence up by a bill of exceptions, we must conclude that it justified the judgment of the lower court by disclosing to it that appellant was not a creditor of the estate and, therefore, had not vested that court with any jurisdiction of his appeal. Stern v. Foltz, 152 Mo. 552; Doherty v. Noble, 138 Mo. 25; Wordsworth v. Tanner, 94 Mo. 124; Estes v. Nell, 140 Mo. 639; Pembroek v. R’y, 32 Mo. App. 61; Turley v. Edwards, 18 Mo. App. 676; Bauer v. Cabanne, 11 Mo. App. 114.

¶2The judgment of the circuit court is accordingly affirmed.

All concur.
/88/moapp/534 · .json · Public domain