Back's Guardian v. Bardo
Decision Date | 06 May 1930 |
Citation | 234 Ky. 211 |
Parties | Back's Guardian et al. v. Bardo et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
The executor named in the will had brought action to sell certain real estate in which testator had an undivided interest, and to construe the will and partition certain land. After judgment in the action, the estate was distributed and the executor filed his report of distribution and settlement, which was confirmed. If the court erred in construing the will, in the partition proceedings, or in the distribution of the estate, the only way to raise such question was by proper proceedings below, or by appeal.
2. Actions. — Action under Declaratory Judgment Act will not lie to determine propriety of judgment in prior action between same parties (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 745; Acts 1922, c. 83).
If action under Declaratory Judgment Act (Acts 1922, c. 83) would lie to determine validity of prior proceedings, it would result in ignoring prior judgment and in depriving parties of right of appeal within time prescribed by Civil Code of Practice, sec. 745. The act was not intended as a substitute for a new trial, appeal, or any other step that Code requires to be taken in same action.
Appeal from Campbell Circuit Court.
BARBOUR & BASSMANN for appellants.
MATT HEROLD, JOHN W. HEUVER and HUBBARD SCHWARTZ for appellees.
Reversing.
Peter N. Bardo, a resident of Campbell county, died March 19, 1923, leaving a will which was duly probated in the Campbell county court. Omitting the immaterial portions, the will reads as follows:
The testator left surviving one son, two daughters, and numerous grandchildren, the children of deceased children.
The will, though contested by certain grandchildren, was sustained, and no appeal has ever been prosecuted from the judgment.
Shortly thereafter George J. Bardo, as executor, and in his individual capacity, together with his wife, filed two actions in the Campbell circuit court; one to sell certain real estate in which the testator had an undivided interest, and the other for the construction of the will and the guidance of the court in the distribution of the estate. In the former action the land was sold and the proceeds distributed by the master commissioner. Later on George J. Bardo, as executor, and in his individual capacity, together with his wife, filed in the action for the construction of the will an amended petition asking the partition of certain lands in which the testator and Clem R. Fennell owned undivided interests. By the amendment all the testators, heirs and devisees were again brought before the court, either by personal or constructive service. Commissioners were appointed who divided the land, reported to the court, and, no exceptions having been filed, the report was confirmed by a nunc pro tunc order. Thereafter, the commissioner appointed by the court conveyed to the testator's estate and to Fennell, the other joint owner, the land allotted to each. Later on the court entered a judgment construing the will and holding that that portion of the estate devised and bequeathed to Peter N....
To continue reading
Request your trial