82 Iowa 69 | Iowa | 1891
I. Michael Holderbaum died seized of a large tract of improved land, used by him in his lifetime
Upon making the seventh report, eight exceptions were taken thereto by the creditors, who are parties to this appeal. Subsequently, after a contest in regard to these claims, which were resisted by the executor, additional exceptions, twenty-eight in number, were filed, making the whole number thirty-five. These numerous exceptions assail the account and claim of the executor, on the ground that he unlawfully turned over to the widow of the testator a large amount of personal property, which she converted to her own use ; that he failed to report as assets of the estate promissory notes coming into his hands ; that he failed -to report the disposition made by him of the personal property of the estate ; that he unlawfully conveyed land of the estate, and mortgaged other lands ; that he has unlawfully distributed to heirs of the estate assets thereof, and has failed to pay claims against the estate; and, generally, it is in the numerous exceptions shown that the executor has unlawfully and wrongfully managed the affairs of the estate, and appropriated the assets thereof to his own use.
II. The creditors also filed a motion for an order requiring the executor to give a bond for the faithful and honest performance of his duty. The abstracts do not show any rulings on this motion, but it appears, from the argument of the attorneys on both sides, that the motion was sustained, and that the executor was ordered to give a bond in the sum of ten thousand dollars. The executor complains of this order, on the ground that he ought not to be required to give a bond at
III. The executor made six reports, — the first April 24, 1880, and the sixth on the twenty-seventh day
IY. The executor set apart to the widow a threshing machine and other property, all amounting in value
Y. The seventh and eighth reports, filed by the executor, not having been approved, were not regarded
YI. The executor complains that the district court charged him in the account stated for the rent of the
YII. The foregoing discussion disposes of all questions of law in the case. The questions which are purely of fact we cannot consider, for the reason that as we have before said, we do not have all the evidence before us.
The judgment of the district court on both appeals is AFFIRMED.