12 Ala. 598 | Ala. | 1847
1. No progress having been made toward the settlement of this estate under the final orders, it is necessarily governed by the act of 1843, (Martin v. Baldwin, 7 Ala. Rep. 923,) and the proceedings, so far as citation to the administrator, and notice to those having an ad
2. This conclusion would relieve us from examining the imputed errors in the final decree, but as the one involving the only shadow of merit has been argued, we may as well state our conclusion upou it as a question of practice. The statute is very express, that an executor or administrator using the funds of the estate, shall pay interest, and in making their returns, they are required, (if the fact be so,) to deny on oath, that they have applied the funds to their own use. [Dig. 198, § 28.] Prima facie therefore, administrators are chargeable with interest upon all sums received until disbursed, and must discharge themselves by their own showing. [Brazeal v. Brazeal, 9 Ala. Rep. 491.] There was then no error in the court thus to correct the account stated by the administrator. We can perceive no error ora the rcord. Judgment affirmed.