Breckenridge v. Ostrom

Citations

• 79 Ill. 71

Syllabus

<p>1. Parties—suit by an administrator—objection to Ms right to sue as such. Where the answer to a bill filed by an administrator did not distinctly deny that the complainant was administrator, but averred ignorance on the subject, and required proper proof, and, on the conclusion of the testimony, the defendant made a motion to dismiss the bill for a different reason, without intimating any objection of want of proof of appointment as administrator, it was held, on appeal, that, if the defendant desired to dispute the complainant’s right to bring the suit in the capacity which he assumed, he should have done so in the court below, in some more explicit manner.</p> <p>2. Variance—between a bill in chancery and the proof and decree. Where an administrator filed a bill for the settlement of a partnership interest of his intestate in a canal boat, claiming that the interest of the intestate was one-lialf, and the decree found that his interest was less than one-lialf, the variance was not a material one.</p> <p>3. Administration oe estates—;jurisdiction of a court of equity. Whilst the act of 1871-2, in regard to the administration of estates, be. stows upon the county court certain jurisdiction in respect to partner, ship estates in case of the death of one partner, it is not exclusive of the ordinary jurisdiction of a court of equity, in a case where an admin, istrator files a bill alleging a partnership interest in his intestate, which is denied by the defendant, and asking for the appointment of a receiver, and an accounting.</p>