Case ID: ga_29/html/0033-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "— Stephens J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex-parte, Milton L. Burney, administrator of Joseph Blount, deceased.
    [1.] An administrator is not entitled to commissions on property turned over by him lo a distributee.
    [2.] The statute organizing the Supreme Court, makes no provision for the hearing of ex parte cases.
    Appeal from the Court of Ordinary. Tried before Judge Love, in Houston Superior Court, May Term, 1859.
    Milton L. Burney, administrator of Joseph Blount, deceased, by his petition to the Court of Ordinary of said county, set forth that under and by virtue of an order of said Court, he had distributed to the heirs of the said Joseph Blount, the negroes belonging to said estate; that by the commissioners appointed by said Court to make said distribution, the negroes were valued at the sum of ten thousand three hundred and twelve dollars, (which was a fair valuation.)
    The petitioner asked for an order and judgment of said Court allowing him two and a half per centum, as commissions, on the said sum of ten thousand three hundred and twelve dollars.
    The Ordinary refused to grant said order; and on appeal to the Superior Court, a jury, under the charge of the Court, found a verdict affirming the judgment of the. Ordinary, re fusing the application. To this charge and finding the ad ministrator excepted, and now assigns the same for error.
    Humphries, for plaintiff in error
   — Stephens J.

By the Court.

delivering the opinion

It is a clear case, that an administrator is not entitled, at least not as a matter of right, to commissions on property turned over by him to a distributee, for this case is expressly excepted hom the statute fixing commissions.

But while we express the .above opinion, we protest against its being drawn into a precedent authorizing this Court to entertain ex parte cases, for the statute organizing the Court, makes no provision for such cases. But as in this case, the effect is the same, whether we affirm the judgment or dismiss the case, we affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.