
    John D. Secrest v. A. Sandford, et al.
    Descent and Distribution — Advancements—Debt.
    In the distribution of a decedent’s estate it is immaterial whether the amount charged against a child was regarded as an advancement or a debt.
    APPEAL FROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.
    March 5, 1872.
    
      Cole, for appellant.
    
    
      Cord, for appellee.
    
   Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters :

The report of the master and the judgment are sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. The money paid Thomas by his parents, whether regarded as an advancement or as a debt from 'him, was properly a charge against him, and until his brothers and sisters had received an equal amount, he nor his vendee should be permitted to participate in the effects to be distributed.

Perceiving, therefore, no error in the judgment, the same is affirmed.  