Jones v. Warren
Jones v. Warren
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The record does not show when the deposition of the appellant was taken, nor the circumstances,'and, so, far as we can discover, there was no ground for suppressing it. The motion to suppress states that it was taken October 24, 1891, without legal notice, while the report of the commissioner shows that it was taken at some time in pursuance of the commission opened by him under the decree of the court. It may have been rightly suppressed because of the circumstances under which it was taken, but we cannot say as to this.
The deposition of Troy Cole was not rightly suppressed. He was a competent witness. Gordon v. McEachin, 57 Miss., 834. His testimony shows satisfactorily that Jones, the administrator, has charged himself, as administrator in this state, with $1,198.85 more than he is chargeable with. The interest of the intestate, Coleman, in the partnership assets of Coleman & Cole constituted Mississippi assets. What
The statute of limitations, and other statutes invoked, have nothing to do with the case. The duly question is, with what sum is the administrator chargeable, by reason of his receipt from Cole of the share of Coleman in the partnership assets of Coleman & Cole?
It seems manifest that he has charged himself with a sum as received on this account which he did not, in fact, receive, and that he is entitled to diminish the debits against him by this much. It seems to us that misunderstanding has resulted from considering the question of paying the $1,193.85 constituting the individual indebtedness of Coleman to Coleman & Cole, whereas, the true question is, how much is the administrator chargeable with, by reason of his receipt from Cole of Coleman’s share of the assets of the partnership of Coleman & Cole? To the extent that the administrator, in his account, charged himself with more than he received on settling with Cole, survivor of Coleman & Cole, he should be allowed credit. That this may be ascertained, the decree is
Reversed, and cause remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Winston Jones, Adm'r v. Amanda L. Warren
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Witness against Estate. Code 1880, § 1602. Stirviving partner as witness. On exceptions to tbe account of an administrator, a surviving partner of tlie intestate is a competent witness to prove the correctness of an open account in favor of the partnership against the deceased partner, which had been paid by the administrator on an accounting. He is not testifying to establish' his own claim against the estate within the meaning of \\ 1602, code 1880. Gordon v. McEaehin, 57 Miss., 834. 2. Estate oe -Decedent. Administration in two states. Domicile of assets. Where an estate in this state and in Alabama consists in part of decedent’s half-interest, as partner in a mercantile firm in this state, and administration is taken out in both states, the balance due to decedent on an accounting of the partnership assets is properly payable to the Mississippi administrator, although deceased lived in Alabama and the accounting was had and money paid in that state. 3. Samis. Administration in this state. What to embrace. Case. Where, on such accounting, the administrator, who is administrator in both states, paid the surviving partner of the Mississippi partnership an account due to it by the deceased partner, and then collected and charged to himself, as administrator in this state, the decedent’s half of the partnership assets, thus augmented, he should be allowed in liis administration in this state for the account so paid; and this, notwithstanding the account was for supplies furnished for decedent’s use in Alabama, and the administrator had sought to obtain credit for the amount in his administration in that state. 4. Estate oe Partner. Accounting. Limitation. Gode 1880, \\ 2206. Said account on the books of the partnership against the deceased partner is not a claim against his estate required to be probated and registered under § 2206, code 1880 ; nor, before an accounting of the partnership assets, is it subject to the statute of limitations.