Preston and Others v. George W. Coons, Administrator of the Estate of Milton Duty, et al.
View original image: Page  205
[missing figure]
Preston, Braxton & others
vs.
George W.CoonsGeorge W Coons
administrator of MiltonMilton Duty
decd & others

In the St Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court .

The separate answer of George W. CoonsGeorge W Coons , admin
istrator of the Estate of MiltonMilton Duty deceased--

George W. CoonsGeorge W Coons , administrator of the Estate of MiltonMilton Duty deceased, for answer to the Supplemental
filed by the complainants in this case against him
as one among other, defendants therein named, reserving
all right of exception to the mainfold errors, insuf
ficiencies, and irregularities therein contained, states in
answer to said supplemental Bill, and in addition
to what he has heretofore stated in answer to the
original bill of complaint filed in this cause
that true it is that he has made his several settlements
in the Probate Court, as in said supplemental charged
and shown by exhibits therein referred to, as the administrator
of MiltonMilton Duty deceased with the will annexed - and that
no demands have been established against said Estate
in the Probate Court since the filing of the answers
of this defendant.
This defendant says that to the best
of his knowledge and belief, the average amount of
money belonging to said estate in his hands since he
became administrator thereof has not exceeded
five hundred dollars, and he further states that
he has never made or received any profits
from such moneys as might from time to time
remained in his hands as administrator, and
that he has not had any occasion to use at any
time any of said moneys in his individual
transactions - that he has promptly paid out all
percentage amounts on claims according to the order of
the Probate Court, and he insists that he being responsive

View original image: Page  206
[missing figure]
for all moneys at all times in his hand as admin
istrator of said estate, had a right to keep it, or use
it in such manner as be might deem proper
subject to the orders of the Probate Court and that
he cannot be charged with interest therefor or for any
profits arising therefrom, even if any profits had
been derived .
This defendant further states that
it is not true that he was induced to administer
on said Duty'sDuty's Estate with the hope on expectation
of realizing profits by speculating in claims
against said Estate, and that he has never purchased
any claim against said Estate, except, one
of our hundred and fifty dollars allowed in favor of
David GentryDavid Gentry , which it is possible this defendant
may have purchased from said GentryGentry , but
of which he has no positive knowledge or
recollection ~ but he knows that he never purchased
such claim at a discount, if he purchased the
same at all, but paid the full amount for it in
cash on merchandize, as he was in the habit of
selling goods to said GentryGentry .
This defendant utterly
denies the charge in said bill, that he has conducted
said administration regardfull of his own inter
ests only, and wantonly and cruelly regardless
of the last will of MiltonMilton Duty decd - and says
that the same is not true but false -
This defendant admits that Hery Fernandis
the original administrator of said Estate in MississippiMississippi
has since died, but he does not know
whether Joel D. Anderson has succeeded him as
administrator or not: nor does he know
whether the administrator or representatives of
said Duty in MississippiMississippi are or ever have been
liable for any balance or any thing, but