Case Name: Noland vs. Turner's Heirs
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1830-12-22
Citations: 5 J.J. Marsh. 179
Docket Number: 
Parties: Noland vs. Turner’s Heirs.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 179–179

Head Matter:
Noland vs. Turner’s Heirs.
Chancery.
3sirror to the Madison Circuit; Richard French, Judge.
Distribution. Parties.
December 22.
Chancelló • should uevep decree distribution, unless all persons interested in the distributable fund are parties to the suit.
Caperton, for plaintiff; Turner, for defendants.

Opinion:
Chief Justice Robertson,
delivered the opinion of the court.
It seems to the court, that the circuit court erred in its decree.
1st. This being a decree for distribution, John Turner's heirs, who were co-distributees, were necessary-parties.
The allegation that Noland, was a party, owned their interest, cannot affect their rights, and:the chancellor should never decree distri but ion..-unless all persons interested in the distributable-fund'are parties to the suit; so that the whole.controversy may be finally-closed.
íád. The evidence did not justify a decree for $50 a year for rent for the whole time. The decree for rent is. for too much.
. 3d. Noland was entitled to something for his services as administrator. The use of the proceeds without interest, is compensation enough for his trouble, in renting the land.
• Wherefore, the decree is reversed, and the cause romanded.for-further proceedings, according to this opinion.