The Holt County sentinel., 1912-06-07
Settled at Last.

we are inlOTl1cu tIlat tIe loux-
drawn.out litigation over the estate
Of u. II. Perkins 4 Co., partnership.
Of Craig. has. perhaps, at last been
set led. the court Of appeals having,
We are Informed, affirmed their form
er decision. reversing Judge Ellison's
holding IN tie matter, and unfolding
the opinion of Judge Porter. of the
probate court. This has been one of
the most stubbornly contested cases
that has passed through our courts
for many years. u. -. Perkins 4 Go.
was a partnership between -. -. Per.
kins and Edmund Anibal doth now
deceased. Who formerly conducted an
extensive merchantile business at
Craig IN this county. Perkins died
first. and the estate went into the
probate court for settlement. A large
number " demands were presented
and allowed against said partnership.
including one for about $1,000. In ia
vor Of the administrator Of Mr.. Per.
kins' individual estate, for money
loaned by Perkins during his lifetime
TO the partnership firm. All the
claims we're assigned by the probate
court to the fifth class Of demands.
and ordinarily. would therefore have
been paid evenly: but the estates
Doth individual and partnership
seemed To be inSolvent. and, 80. Al.
torneys J. u. Slackelford. Of st. 10.
scph and II. r. Alkire. Of this city.
representing large number Of the
commercial claimants, tled a motion
IN the probate court asking for a
judgment requiring the partnership
administrators to pay all commercial
creditors first, before anything should
oe paid on the AI.WO.W claim Of the
administrator of u. D.s personal e..
tate. for the reason. as claimed by
them that u. ID. Perkins was, him
self, liable. personally. for all these
claims 10y commercial creditors, and
that his individual estate since his
death was liable for same; and that,
therefore his individual estate was
no, entitled To he paid anything out of
the partnership assets until all these
commercial creditors we're first paid
IN full. Il. Is. Bridgmon and John
kcnnisl now Judge Of the supreme
court appeared against the motion.
ami the matter was extensively gone
into IN a trial before Judge Porter IN
the probate court. Judge Porter's
decision was In favor of the motion.
and the DIRECTORS appealed to the cir.
cult court. Here the matter was
tried anew. a, considerable length and
Judge Ellison oyerrued Judge por.
,er'> decision. From this decision
Messr>. Shackellord aud Alkire's eli.
ents appealed. and the matter vas
carried 10 the Kansas city court Of
appeals. II was tried anew there,
about year later, and that court
ovcrrulcd Judge Ellison's holding,
and affirmed that Of Judge Porter.
Before this trial Of the matter came.
however. Judge krnnish had been
appointed To the supreme bench and
other counsel was employed 10 take
ihe matter along through the court
Of appeals. including Sam Ilalstead, Of
Jefferson city, and &. &. Crow, Of 81.
Joseph. These new counsellors, to-
gcilcr with Mr.. Bridgmon, who lad
been In the matter from the start,
muved the court Of appeals for re-
hearing of the matter, and, after an
other delay Of considerable length,
Nrrc granted the new hearing. Then
the case was set down for trial anew
In that court, and, AT the recent
Marcia term, the same was again pre-
scented with good deal of vigor, aud,
nov, after about three months con.
siderai ion. the court has, II l. said.
affirmed their former decision, over.
ruling he circuit court here. and adj
Judging that the commercial creditors
Of said partnership are by the law EN-
Titled Ia priority Of payment Of their
claims, over an account Of one Of the
partners. This We presume viii now
settle the content ions in the matter,
and perhaps the estates will nov he
finally settled up.