Aram v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 22 December 1903
• Citation: 74 P. 961,9 Idaho 333
• Parties: ARAM v. EDWARDS
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

74 P. 961

9 Idaho 333

ARAM v. EDWARDS

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 22, 1903

JURISDICTION MAY BE RAISED FIRST TIME IN THIS COURT-DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN PROBATE MATTERS WHEN.

1. The question of jurisdiction may be raised for the first time in this court: Revised Statutes, section 4178.

2. When it is shown by the record that all parties interested in a copartnership and the property thereof come into the district court or a court of equity and show that all debts outside the members of the copartnership and their heirs have been fully paid, and it is further shown that a settlement in the probate court would incur large and unnecessary expense, it is within the jurisdiction of the district court.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court of Idaho County. Honorable Edgar C Steele, Judge.

Judgment for plaintiff from which minor heirs by their guardian appeals. Judgment affirmed.

Affirmed, with Costs.

W. N Scales, for Appellant, cites no authorities in his brief, simply giving an epitome of the facts as alleged in the complaint, all of which the court has copied in the opinion.

R. F. Fulton and Fogg & Nugent, for Respondents.

The sole question suggested by appellants for review by this court is whether the district court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. The question of jurisdiction was not raised in the court below. The appellants, minor children, were served with process, appeared both by general guardian and guardian ad litem duly appointed by the court. Answer was filed by guardian ad litem, putting in issue every allegation of the plaintiff's complaint. The appellants, by the answer of their general guardian, consented to and prayed for the decree rendered in this action. The decree of the court herein, however, was supported by proof of every allegation of plaintiff's complaint had upon the issues tendered by the answer of their guardian ad litem. Thus the interests of the appellants were guarded by all the ample means within the command of a court of general equity jurisdiction. The respondents maintain that the district court not only had ample power under its general equity jurisdiction to try and dispose of the issues herein, but that the probate court was without power to settle and dispose of the complex issues made by the pleadings in the case at bar, involving as they did questions of trust estate, partnership accounting and partition. "The jurisdiction of the probate court over testamentary and probate matters is not exclusive. Most of its general powers belong peculiarly and originally to the court of chancery, which still retains its jurisdiction." "The district court may take jurisdiction of the settlement of an estate when there are peculiar circumstances of embarrassment to its administration and when the assuming jurisdiction would prevent waste, delay and expense, and thus conclude by one action and decree a protracted and vexatious litigation." (Deck v. Gerke, 12 Cal. 433, 73 Am. Dec. 555.) Where partnership real estate was held in the name of the deceased, a suit by surviving partner to obtain a decree vesting the property in the partnership was held within the jurisdiction of the district court. (Gray v. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616; Haverstick v. Tridel, 51 Cal. 431-434; Trotter v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assn., 9 S. Dak. 596, 62 Am. St. Rep. 887, 70 N.W. 843; Burns v. Smith, 21 Mont. 251, 69 Am. St. Rep. 653, 53 P. 742.) "Though the settlement of estates of decedents is committed to probate courts by statute, equity has jurisdiction whenever its aid is required and the powers of the probate court are not sufficient to deal with the question at issue." ( Bailey v. Bailey, 67 Vt. 494, 48 Am. St. Rep. 826, 32 A. 470; Harvey v. Pennypacker, 4 Del. Ch. 445, cited in note, 15 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. 1060.)

STOCKSLAGER, J. Sullivan, C. J., concurs. Ailshie, J., took no part in the decision.

OPINION

STOCKSLAGER, J.

This action was brought in the district court of Idaho county for an accounting and settlement of a partnership, and to declare certain real estate described in the complaint to be partnership property. The facts as stated by appellant, and not disputed by respondent, are that on the fourteenth day of June, 1890, James H. Aram, one of the plaintiffs, and one John Aram and one John T. Aram, both now deceased, entered into written articles of copartnership for the purpose of farming, stock-raising, buying and selling stock and for other purposes; that pursuant to said articles said parties engaged in such business as partners until the same was dissolved by the death of John T. Aram on the twentieth day of May, 1897; that thereafter the surviving partners conducted the business for the purpose of settling the same; that before the same was settled, and on the thirtieth day of September, 1901, John Aram died; and thereafter the sole surviving partner, James H. Aram, has had the control and conduct of said business for the purpose of settling the same.

The complaint alleges that certain real estate described therein was acquired, held and owned by the partnership, but that the same stood on the records in the names of the individuals composing the partnership, but all being copartnership property and assets; that said...