Summary

Rufus Wheeler Peckham Harrison v. Perea — Opinion of the Court

Instead of obtaining that possession, he finds all the assets in the hands of the defendant Harrison, who refuses to give them up. Their amount is not really in controversy. The defendant shows no right or title whatever to them. It is no answer to the demand that the defendant should pay over the sum which is, in substance, acknowledged to be in his possession, to say that the minor's estate may be increased after an accounting shall be had, and judgment obtained, and the money paid over in the matter of the estate of the elder Perea.
Source: Wikisource

Rufus Wheeler Peckham Harrison v. Perea — Opinion of the Court

It is plain that the complainant, as the surviving administrator of the estate of the deceased minor, was entitled to the immediate possession of all the assets of such estate. Upon the death of the minor, the guardianship of the mother ceased; and, as she was thereupon appointed administratrix, her continuing to hold the assets of the estate from the time of such appointment was as administratrix, and not as guardian. The counsel for Harrison says, in his brief, that he is disposed to concede this proposition. It is plainly true.
Source: Wikisource

Rufus Wheeler Peckham Harrison v. Perea — Opinion of the Court

Upon the cross appeal of the complainant, he seeks to modify the judgment of the supreme court in regard to the parties to the distribution, as he claims that the fund should be distributed, one half to the administrator of the deceased mother of the minor, and the other half among his 12 half brothers and sisters (children of the minor's father) , to the exclusion of the minor's half brother, Grover William Harrison (the son of his mother by her husband, Harrison) , who, by the judgment of the court, is permitted to share in such distribution.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature