Mathews v. Durkee

Citations

• 34 Fla. 559

Syllabus

<p>1. It is doubtful if an order of a probate judge, under the law as it stood in 1867, revoking letters of administration upon the ground that the administrator had not “complied with the Jaw which required him to file a full and correct account of the receipts and expenditures of the estate under his control,” or “made an affidavit that he has rendered a true and correct account of his administration,” from which the court held that “mismanagement was apparent,” is authorized by a strict construction of the language of the statute; but the same can not be attacked collaterally, and must stand unless reversed or set aside under proper proceedings for that purpose.</p> <p>2. If an order of the kind described in the preceding bead-rote could under any circumstances be attacked collaterally, it can not be so attacked by the persons who were petitioners in the proceedings in which the order was made, when said order was made in their favor, upon their request for their benefit, and they have acquiesced in the same for more than twenty years.</p> <p>3. Where there is an administration upon an estate, during an adverse holding of the lands of the intestate, for such a period as under the statute of limitations bar the right of the administrator in an action of ejectment, the heirs of the intestate are likewise barred.</p>