Beddow v. Beddow's Adm'r
| Decision Date | 30 October 1953 |
| Citation | 267 S.W.2d 87 |
| Parties | BEDDOW v. BEDDOW'S ADM'R. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
James F. Clay, Danville, for appellant.
Pierce Lively, Danville, for appellee.
This appeal involves the legality of the appointment of the surviving widow's nominee as administrator of the estate of Robert L. Beddow, deceased.
The background of this case is that Robert L. Beddow died intestate, a resident of Boyle County, on June 15, 1951, leaving a substantial estate of real and personal property. Besides his wife, Josephine Epperson Beddow, he was survived by a brother, Thomas Beddow, a sister, Mrs. Mary Griffin, and a nephew, Charles Beddow, the son of a deceased sister. On April 28, 1952, James H. Sparrow, Jr., filed a verified application in the Boyle County Court, seeking appointment as administrator of the decedent's estate and, at the same time, the surviving wife waived her right to act in this capacity and requested the court to name Sparrow for the trust. On the same day a like application was made by the Citizens National Bank of Danville. Eight days later, or on May 6, 1952, Thomas Beddow filed his application for the appointment.
Upon the disqualification of the regular county judge, the Honorable Edgar C. Newlin, appointed specially to try this case, after proper notice, held a hearing on the various applications and rendered a decision by appointing Sparrow as the administrator and dismissing the other two applications. Thomas L. Beddow immediately superseded the order entered in the county court and appealed therefrom to the Boyle Circuit Court where on September 20, 1952, his case was dismissed. He has brought his appeal to this Court for a final adjudication.
The foregoing development is a sequel to the litigation reported in Beddow v. Beddow, Ky., 257 S.W.2d 45, wherein the validity of the marriage of the decedent and his wife was and still is under attack. The petition in the former appeal alleged, in part, that when the above marriage was consummated on January 30, 1950, at Columbus, Mississippi, Robert L. Beddow was insane. A demurrer was filed to the petition and sustained, which we held to be error. In the opinion we handed down we declared that if the decedent were in reality insane at the time of the marriage the union would be void as against the public policy of this Commonwealth, in spite of the fact that such a marriage is only voidable in the state of Mississippi. Up to now, in so far as we have been able to ascertain, the question of the decedent's insanity as of the date of his marriage is still an issue awaiting determination in the lower court.
Appellant argues at the outset that because the widow may, in the action was have just discussed, be eventually adjudged not to be the wife of the decedent, she is thereby deprived of her first preference to qualify or in the alternative to designate a suitable administrator in her stead, pursuant to KRS 395.040. This same contention was made and answered in Hood v. Higgins' Curator, 225 Ky. 718, 9 S.W.2d 1078, 1080. In that case, the decedent died intestate and his adopted daughter made timely application for appointment as administratrix. Neither a widow nor a natural child survived. Certain relatives and creditors objected to the appointment on the ground that a suit was pending to vacate the judgment of adoption and that until such suit had been decided the adopted daughter should not be permitted to exercise any rights she had acquired by reason of her adoption. The county court refused to honor her application and the circuit court affirmed this action. On appeal, this Court reversed the lower court, holding that until the judgment of adoption was voided no other court could refuse to recognize it or defeat the right conferred by it. In that case we gave this cogent reason for our decision: '* * * Otherwise, the rights of such person could be indefinitely suspended by a mere action assailing his rights, leaving him without remedy if the suit ultimately...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Outfront Media, LLC v. LeMaster
-
Yeary v. Yeary
...to the appointment of an administrator was lost, and who should be appointed became a matter of discretion of the court. Beddow v. Beddow's Adm'r, Ky., 267 S.W.2d 87. (It is exceedingly doubtful whether Marjorie ever had any preference rights, because as a nonresident she was not eligible h......