Case ID: miss_149/html/0222-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Anderson, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

King et al. v. Stauddy’s Estate et al.
      
    
    (Division B.
    Feb. 6, 1928.)
    [115 So. 427.
    No. 26821.]
    Executors and Administrators. Claimants failing to introduce evidence as to amount of claim held not entitled to decree fixing such amounts.
    
    Where claimants against estate failed to introduce evidence showing definite amount of indebtedness, they were not entitled to decree fixing amounts of claims.
    Appeal from chancery court of Grenada county.
    Hon. N.. R. Sledge, Chancellor.
    Proceeding between R. V. King and others and the Estate of J. R. Stauddy and another. Decree for the latter, and the former appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Bruce D. Newsom and Wells, Stevens & Jones, for appellants. .
    
      Cowles Horton, and Wm. M. Hall, for appellees.
    
      
      Corpus Juris-Cyc. References: Executors and Adminstrators, 24CJ, p. 404, n. 71.
    
   Anderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The view we take renders it unnecessary to decide whether or not appellants ’ claims are covered by chapter 217 of the Laws of 1918. Appellants’ claims arose out of their contracts with Stauddy. They were liquidated claims. The amounts due each of the appellants were fixed sums. Under the law appellants were required to establish by a preponderance of evidence the amounts of their claims. This they failed to do. Taking the view of the evidence most favorable to appellants, it showed no more than that Stauddy was indebted to them in some amounts. As to what amounts, the evidence left wholly vague and indefinite. On such evidence the chancellor was without authority to render a decree for appellants fixing the amounts of their claims.

Affirmed.