[Download] "State Ex Rel. Finley v. District Court" by Supreme Court of Montana * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: State Ex Rel. Finley v. District Court
• Author : Supreme Court of Montana
• Release Date : January 28, 1935
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 66 KB

Description

Writ of Supervisory Control ? Function of Writ ? Executors and Administrators ? Refusal of Probate Court to Permit Nonresident Claimant to Present Claim to Domiciliary Executor ? Absence of Remedy by Appeal ? Availability of Writ ? Ancillary and Domiciliary Representatives ? Privity. Writ of Supervisory Control ? Function of Writ. 1. One of the functions of the writ of supervisory control is to enable the supreme court to control the course of litigation in the inferior courts where they are proceeding within their jurisdiction, but by mistake of law or wilful disregard of it, are doing a gross injustice and there is no appeal or the remedy by appeal is inadequate. Executors and Administrators ? Probate Court Refusing to Permit Nonresident to Present Claim Against Estate ? Absence of Remedy by Appeal ? Writ of Supervisory Control Lies. 2. There being no appeal from an order of the district court sitting in probate refusing to permit a nonresident to present a claim, based on a promissory note of a decedent, to the executor for allowance after the time for presenting claims had expired, on the ground that petitioner did not have notice of the death of the maker, or the administration of the estate, the petition being based upon section 10173, Revised Codes 1921, the writ of supervisory control lies to review the action of the court. Same ? Domiciliary and Ancillary Representatives ? Right of Creditors to Present Claims Against Estate. 3. The general rule is that all creditors of an estate have a right to present their claims to its domiciliary representative, and creditors who reside in the jurisdiction where ancillary administration has been granted, may present theirs to the ancillary representative. Same ? Estoppel in Favor of Ancillary Administrator Does not Affect Domiciliary Representative, and Vice Versa ? Privity. 4. Although a domiciliary and an ancillary representative of an estate are in privity with the decedent, there is no privity between themselves; hence estoppels in favor of or against one do not bind or affect the other. - Page 201 Same ? Claims Against Estate ? Excusable Failure of Nonresident Claimant to Present Claim to Ancillary Administrator No Bar to Presentation to Domiciliary Representative ? Absence of Privity Between Representatives. 5. Where a creditor of an estate resided in California, in which state ancillary administration was granted, but was ignorant of the death or the administration of the estate of the debtor during the time in which claims against the estate could be presented in that state, he was not estopped from presenting it to the domiciliary representative in Montana under the provision of section 10173, supra, authorizing its presentation under such state of facts at any time before order of distribution is entered, there being no privity between the two administrations.

PDF Books Download "State Ex Rel. Finley v. District Court" Online ePub Kindle