Appeal of Matthews

• Decision Date: 19 January 1900
• Citation: 45 A. 170,72 Conn. 555
• Parties: Appeal of MATTHEWS.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

45 A. 170

72 Conn. 555

Appeal of MATTHEWS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 19, 1900.

Case reserved from superior court, Tolland county; Silas A. Robinson, Judge.

Application by Eugenia C. Matthews and others to compel Alvarado Howard and another, administrators of the estate of Julius Converse, to settle their accounts. From a decree of the probate court adjudging that it had no jurisdiction of the accounting, petitioners appealed. The superior court found facts, and reserved the cause for advice of the supreme court. Decree of probate court reversed, and cause remanded to superior court for accounting.

The facts found are, in substance, these: Julius Converse, of Stafford, in this state, died intestate in June, 1892, leaving a widow, Mira L. Converse, and four children, to wit, Eugenia C. Matthews, wife of A. B. Matthews, of Chicago, and Lillian A. Lee, wife of William Lee, J. Carl Converse, and Louis S. Converse, all of said Stafford. In June, 1892, Alvarado Howard and J. M. Sheehan were appointed as administrators of the estate of said deceased, and they at once accepted said appointment and duly qualified. In March, 1893, the administrators filed in court an inventory of said estate, without appraisal. On the 14th of June, 1893, they filed in court a preliminary statement of money received and payments made, with accompanying schedules, which on the same day the court ordered to be recorded and kept on file. On the 19th day of June, 1893, a paper signed by the widow and the four children aforesaid, who were all the persons interested in the estate, and were all "capable to act," was filed and recorded in said probate court. Said paper purported to be executed under the provisions of section 629 of the General Statutes. In that paper the parties thereto, among other things, agreed as follows: "That it is desirable, and for the best interest of all of us, parties hereto, that a division and distribution of this intestate estate should and ought to be made by mutual agreement by and among us, as is permitted and authorized in such premises" by the statute aforesaid; "that after the payment of all legal debts of said intestate from the fund made up from cash and the proceeds of the securities belonging to said estate, save as below excepted, we each agree to accept such part of the remainder of said fund as each of us is by law entitled to receive, namely, one-third part of such re mainder to Mira L. Converse, and one-sixth part of such remainder to each" of said foul children. Then follow certain provisions, the substance of which may be thus stated: (1) An agreement by each and all of said parties to "accept" the distribution of the shares of the capital stock of four named corporations as set forth in said paper; (2) an agreement as to what the widow should have under the distribution in addition to her share of said capital stock, in which it was also agreed that the administrators should pay to the widow $12,000, "proportionally from the separate shares" of the four children, for the release of her right of dower in certain real estate; (3) an agreement by the four children as to the division of the real estate, and a statement of the specific real estate to be accepted by each child. In December, 1894, the administrators filed in said court two certain schedules supplementary to the inventory, one itemizing this entry in the original inventory, "Cash with bankers and brokers, $45,000," and the other itemizing "all property discovered and omitted" from the original inventory. In March, 1896, Eugenia C. Matthews prayed the court to order the administrators to file their account, and the court ordered them to do so on or before April 10 1896. On that, day the administrators filed an account in court. This was supplemented and made more specific by schedules thereafter filed by order of court. All of said accounts and schedules were duly filed and recorded. On the 1st of August, 1896, a hearing was had on the allowance of this account. The court found that said account was "a preliminary account of the distribution of said estate," and ordered it to be kept on file and recorded, and made "a part of the final administration account, subject to such corrections of errors and omissions as the court may order and approve." The court further ordered the administrators to file their final administration account on or before the 14th of November, 1896. On said day the administrators filed an administration account in court. On the 15th of October, 1898, the administrators filed in court an account stating that it "contains a true statement of all moneys received and expended by them" as administrators, and that all claims allowed by them against said estate have been discharged. At the hearing had upon the administration account in November, 1898, the court held "that the adjudication of the accounts filed November 16, 1896, and October 15, 1898, is not within the Jurisdiction of this court," and decreed accordingly. From this action of the court an appeal was taken by Mrs. Matthews to the superior court. The questions reserved are six in number. The substance of the first five may be stated thus: Whether, after the filing and recording of Exhibit 5, the court of probate had any further Jurisdiction over the accounts of the administrators, and, if yea, to what extent; and the last is whether, on the appeal to the superior court in this case, that court "has jurisdiction over the accounting of the administrators, * * * and, if so, to what extent."

Edward D. Robbins, for Eugenia C.

Matthews. Charles E. Perkins, for administrators.

TORRANCE, J. (after stating the facts). The principal question in this case relates to the operation and effect of...