Thomson v. Barker
George Thomson, Adm'r, etc. v. Joseph N. Barker, Adm'r, de bonis non, etc.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Mr. Justice Waterman delivered the opinion of the court.
It is urged by appellant that the court improperly admitted in evidence the bond given by Dougald Muir; first, because, as the bond runs to the people of the State of Illinois, no action could be maintained thereon save in the name of the people.
The claim in this case was filed in the Probate Court against the estate of Duncan M. Thomson, there in process of administration.
The Probate Court has jurisdiction of all claims, both legal and equitable, against estates there administered upon; and this claim was properly allowed by this court in favor of the estate to which it belonged.. Moore v. Rogers, 19 Ill. 347 ; Dixon v. Bell, 21 Ill. 203 ; Hurd v. Slater, 43 Ill. 348 ; Brandon v. Brown, Ex’r, etc., 106 Ill. 519 ; McCall v. Lee, 120 Ill. 261 -269; Clark v. Carr, 45 Ill. App. 469 -478.
The omission of the statement of the claim in the Probate Court of the name of Charles Pugh, one of the makers of the bond, is immaterial. The claim was presented against the estate of Duncan M. Thomson; no objection was made on account of variance, which should have been done if appellant expected to rely thereon. Stearns v. Reidy, 135 Ill. 119 -122; Smith v. Prall, 133 Ill. 312 ; Start v. Moran, 27 Ill. App. 119 .
Written pleadings are unnecessary when a claim is presented for allowance in the Probate Court. Thorp v. Goewey, 85 Ill. 612 .
The Probate, and on appeal the Circuit Court, properly proceeded to consider this claim and to allow the same, notwithstanding it was a legal claim against a surety who could, be held only upon the letter of his bond. Eo defense thereto was shown.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.