Bronson v. Bronson

• Decision Date: 19 January 1891
• Citation: 102 Mo. 613,15 S.W. 74
• Parties: BRONSON et al. v. BRONSON et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

15 S.W. 74

102 Mo. 613

BRONSON et al. v. BRONSON et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January 19, 1891.

APPEAL FROM PROBATE COURT — ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION.

1. On the final settlement of an administrator, the probate court having charged him with a certain sum, and ordered distribution thereof, the judgment is final, and an appeal lies at once, though the settlement is continued under Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 241, providing that the court may order the administrator to sell at public auction the notes and accounts remaining in his hands, and report the proceeds at the next term, and "said settlement shall be continued to such term."

2. An appeal lies in such case under the provision of Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 292, giving an appeal from "all orders making distribution," and, in reviewing such order, the court will review the order fixing the amount due from the administrator.

3. The circuit court having settled the account of the administrator, and no motion for a new trial nor bill of exceptions having been filed during the term, the judgment is final and conclusive, and the account is not kept open by an order that the administrator sell the notes and accounts on hand, and report the proceeds at the next term, and that the settlement be continued to that term for final approval.

4. The circuit court has no jurisdiction on such appeal to order the sale of the notes and accounts on hand, nor to take an account of their proceeds; Rev. St. Mo. 1879, §§ 297, 300, providing that the appeal shall not be a supersedeas in any other matter, except that in which the appeal is specially taken, and that the proceedings in the circuit court shall be certified back to the probate court.

Appeal from circuit court, Phelps county.

T. K. Slinder, for appellants. L. F. Parker, for respondents.

BLACK, J.

The plaintiffs, Bronson and Owens, as administrators of the estate of David Bronson, filed in the probate court of Phelps county their final settlement, to which four of the heirs filed exceptions. The issues thus made were heard by the probate court on the 9th September, 1886. Some of the exceptions were sustained, and others overruled. The judgment of the probate court is to the following effect: First, that the administrators stand charged with the sum of $4,024.64; second, that they pay designated allowed demands; third, that they pay to each distributee $508.57; fourth, that they sell the uncollected notes and accounts and some other personal property, and report at the next November term; and the order concludes by continuing the settlement to the next term for final approval. The administrators appealed from the foregoing order at the term at which it was made. The controversy was heard anew in the circuit court at its February term, 1887. It seems the probate court overlooked a prior order directing the administrators to pay to each distributee the sum of $240. The circuit court corrected this error, but the amount adjudged to be in the hands of the administrators is the same as that found to be due by the probate court. No further steps were taken in the case at that term of the circuit court; but at the following August term the administrators made a report of their sale of notes and accounts, exhibited receipts from all of the distributees for amounts ordered to be paid under former orders of the probate and circuit court, and the circuit court then made an additional order of distribution of the proceeds arising from the sale of notes and accounts, and discharged the administrators. The defendants at that term filed various motions, and took a bill of exceptions, and appealed to this court.

1. The first contention on the part of the defendants is that the appeal from the probate court was taken before that court had rendered any final order or judgment on the settlement, and for that reason the circuit court acquired no jurisdiction of the case. That appeals may be taken from the probate court on all final settlements, and from all orders making distribution, cannot be doubted. But the contention is that the order of distribution and order settling the accounts are distinct orders, and the order settling the account was continued until the next term of the probate court, so that there was no final adjudication. The order of the...