{
  "id": 1868253,
  "name": "Moreland vs. Gilliam Adm.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moreland v. Gilliam",
  "decision_date": "1860-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "507",
  "last_page": "509",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 Ark. 507"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "16 Ark. 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725524
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/16/0491-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ark. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 2484,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06877370070610295
    },
    "sha256": "a5b97835cbd285dda4d9aff0565bfc82acc941bb633cf72a70d79c145a8043e7",
    "simhash": "1:b3b83ee4c300a4c2",
    "word_count": 408
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:46:32.809826+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Moreland vs. Gilliam Adm."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fairchild\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nMoreland had been the administrator of Wiley Beasley, and in defending law suits as such administrator, had incurred costs, as he claimed, to the amount of one hundred and seventeen dollars and ninety cents.\nGilliam had become the administrator of Lucy Beasley; whereupon without presentation of the claim to Gilliam, and without notice to him, Moreland presented his petition to the Probate Court of Pulaski county, at its October term 1857, to have the aforementioned sum allowed to him out of the estate of Lucy Beasley, as expenses of the administration of Wiley Beasley\u2019s estate.\nThe Probate Court sustained the petition, and ordered the allowance to be made.\nOn a subsequent day, at the same term, Gilliam appeared in the Probate Court, and prayed and obtained an appeal against the allowance to the Circuit Court.\nThere the judgment of the Probate Court was reversed, and on hearing of the case in the Circuit Court, judgment was rendered against Moreland.\nNo reason is shown why Lucy Beasley\u2019s estate should be charged with the account presented in Moreland\u2019s petition. We do not see how expenses of administration could be allowed against her estate, but at the instance of its representative, and for moneys paid out in the. course of the administration of that estate.\nNo bill of exceptions was necessary to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction, the error appearing upon the record of the Probate Court. Dempsey vs. Fenno, 16 Ark. 493; Jones vs. Jones, 21 Ark.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fairchild"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bertrand, for the appellant,",
      "Fowler & Stillwell, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Moreland vs. Gilliam Adm.\nThe Probate Court having allowed expenses of administration of the husband\u2019s estate, against the estate of his widow, the Circuit Court properly reversed the' judgment.\nNo bill of exceptions is necessary to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction, on appeal from the Probate Court, where the error appears upon the record.\nAppeal from Pulaski Circuit Court.\nHon. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge.\nBertrand, for the appellant,\ncontended that the Circuit Court had. no jurisdiction, because there was no bill of exceptions setting out the testimony on the trial in the Probate Court: that in Dempsey vs. Fenno, (16 Ark. 491,) it was decided that a bill of exceptions was unnecessary where the record itself presents everything necessary to a full adjudication of the case; but in this case there was testimony, which does not appear upon the record.\nFowler & Stillwell, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0507-01",
  "first_page_order": 509,
  "last_page_order": 511
}