Court Opinion

ID: 5435704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 17:54:03.143899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:31:49.394524
License: Public Domain

Per Shafter J., Sawyer J., concurring.
There is, in my judgment, no ambiguity affecting the word “ claim” as used in the one hundred and thirty-first section of the Probate Act. However it may be in other sections, still in that section it is not limited to claims against the estate at large, as distinguished from claims secured by mortgage upon a part or upon the whole of it. The substance of the provision is that all claims having their origin in contract shall draw only ten per cent per annum, after letters of administration have been issued, if the estate of the decedent shall have been insolvent. The appellant in this case had two distinct claims—the note and the mortgage—and as each of them had its origin in contract, both of them are within the scope of the word “ claim” as limited in the section; and whether considered severally, or in their relations to each other, they are directly within the ten per cent provision of the section; and as no other question than that has been raised by counsel for our consideration I concur in the aErmance of the order, on the ground stated in this opinion.