About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 Myra Clark Gaines vs. Duncan N. Hennen 1859

handle is hein.trials/abfc0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Myra Clark Gaitnes vs. Duncan V. Rennen. 517 And this defendant, by protestation, &c., not waiving his several demurrers, for further answer and defence to the said bill of said complainants answers and says, that in the Court of Probates in and for the parish and city of New Orleans, on the day of an application was made for and on behalf of persons therein styling themselves the heirs of the aforesaid Mary Clark, and as her heirs, legatees, and devisees, and as such to be entitled to an account from the said Beverly Chew and Richard Relf, of their adminstration of the estate of said Daniel Clark, and to pos- session of the remaider thereof, and after hearing the said applica- tion, and of the appointment of an attorney to represent the absent heirs, the said Court of Probates of the parish and city of New Orleans did order, direct, and decree that an account should be rendered into said court by Beverly Chew and Richard Relf, show- ing their administration of the estate of said Daniel Clark as his executors; and thereupon and afterwards, to wit, on the 23d day of August, 1838, the said Beverly Chew and Richard Relf did, in obedience to the said decree of the said Court of Probates of the parish and city of New Orleaus, file their account in said court, together with all necessary and proper vouchers to sustain and ex- plain the same, showing fully and particularly everything which had ever came into their possession, as the executors of the said Daniel Clark, and all property of every kind, real and personal, which be- longed to said Clark, or in which he had an interest at the time of his, said Daniel Clark's death, and which in any manner came to the possession of said Beverly Chew and Richard Relf, or either of them, and upon the filing of said account, the said Beverly Chew and iRichard Relf did present their petition to said Court of Pro- bates, praying that due and legal publications of the presentations of said account might be made, which was done and ordered by said court, calling and adminishing all persons to show cause why within a given time, in said notice mentioned, the said account should not be approved and homologated, all of which was done, in strict con- formity to the laws of Louisiana; and afterwards, to wit, on the 17th day of April, 1841, the said Court of Probates in and for the parish and city of New Orleans, did further order and decree the said accunt to be homologated, so far as not then opposed, and all which proceedings, and the several other proceedings therein, in said court had, this defendant refers to as part of his answer to the bill of said complainants, and seth the same up in bar to any relief sought by said complainants in their said bill, and insist that he can- not be called upon the account for the proceedings and disposition of the effects of'the said Daniel Clark, which came into the hands of said Chew and Relf, by any decree of this honorable court, after they have been decreed and ordered to do so by a judgment of a. court of competent jurisdiction, to wit, the Court of Probates of the parish and city of New Orleans, after the said Richard Relf and Beverly Chew have complied with said judgment, and will be

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most