Harrison v. Cannon Harrison v. Cannon

Harrison v. Cannon

122 MONT. 318, 203 P.2D 978, 1949.MT.0000015

    • € 0,99
    • € 0,99

Beschrijving uitgever

1. Executors and administrators ? Decree of distribution as judgment. A decree of distribution while not strictly a judgment, is treated as a judgment and the mode of review applicable to judgments is applicable. 2. Executors and administrators ? Decree of distribution conclusive, when. In the absence of fraud, a decree of distribution made upon due notice is conclusive of the rights of heirs as against collateral attack. - Page 319 3. Judgment ? Collateral attack on decree of distribution. An attempt to invalidate a judgment or decree having the force and effect of a judgment in a quiet title suit is a "collateral attack." 4. Executors and administrators ? Decree of distribution final here. A decree of distribution awarding the entire estate of deceased husband to his widow under the provisions of the statute of succession and distribution then in effect, was final in the same manner as in any other judgment, and property rights determined therein were conclusively settled, in the absence of an appeal or some other statutory method of correcting the decree. 5. Executors and administrators ? Notice of settlement of account, purpose of. Under the statutes providing that when any account is rendered for settlement, the judge may fix a date for its settlement and give notice therefor and that when settlement is for a final account notice must so designate, the purpose of the statutes is to bring all interested parties within the jurisdiction of the court and bind them by the courts orders. 6. Executors and administrators ? Notice of settlement and distribution jurisdictional. The notice for the decree of distribution of the estate of a decedent and notice for the settlement of the final account are jurisdictional. 7. Notice ? Duty when notice is given. After notice of a hearing has been properly given in the first instance to parties, it becomes the duty of all interested parties to keep themselevs informed by diligent inquiry of subsequent continuances of the hearing. 8. Executors and administrators ? Supplemental account, effect of non-notice. The fact that no further notice was given the parties of the filing of the supplemental account did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to make the distribution so as to subject its decree to a collateral attack.

GENRE
Professioneel en technisch
UITGEGEVEN
1949
9 maart
TAAL
EN
Engels
LENGTE
13
Pagina's
UITGEVER
LawApp Publishers
GROOTTE
57,3
kB

Meer boeken van Supreme Court of Montana

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Glassing St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Glassing
1994
Matter of J.S. & P.S Matter of J.S. & P.S
1994
Curtis & Vilensky v. District Court Curtis & Vilensky v. District Court
1994
Watkins v. Williams Watkins v. Williams
1994
State v. Phillips State v. Phillips
1954
Gullickson v. Mitchell Gullickson v. Mitchell
1942