Danby v. Dawes

• Decision Date: 08 December 1888
• Citation: 81 Me. 30,16 A. 255
• Parties: DANBY v. DAWES
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

16 A. 255

81 Me. 30

DANBY

v. DAWES.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

December 8, 1888.

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Hancock county.

Appeal from probate court appointing an administrator on the estate of Joseph Dawes, deceased. The appellant, Danby, alleges that sufficient facts were not set forth in the petition for appointment, and that sufficient facts did not exist to authorize the granting of administration. The presiding judge affirmed the decree of the probate court, and the appellant alleged exceptions.

Hale & Hamlin, for appellant. Wiswell, King & Peters, for appellee.

PETERS, C. J. A petition was filed in the probate court asking the appointment of an administrator on the estate of Joseph Dawes, alleging that he "died intestate, possessed of goods remaining to be administered, leaving no widow." The question presented by the exceptions is whether under such a petition an administration can be legally grunted. The appellant contends that the petition on its face fails to show that the judge had jurisdiction, because it does not aver either that the intestate died possessed of personal property of the value of at least $20, or that he owed debts of that amount, and left real estate of that value. The statutes require that such a condition of the estate shall exist in order to authorize administration. Rev. St. c. 63, § 6, and chapter 64, § 1. The appellee contends that the petition implies that sufficient facts exist to warrant administration, that "property to be administered" means an amount exceeding $20, and that the statutes are satisfied by the proof to be furnished, rather than by the allegations made. "While we would not discourage formal and orderly proceedings in the probate court, we think that the technical strictness of allegation which the appellant invokes is not indispensable, and that his exceptions must be overruled. That court is not one of general or common-law jurisdiction, and formal pleadings are unknown in its procedure. Its practitioners are largely persons who do their own business before the court, or unprofessional persons whom their neighbors have employed to act for them. The appellant correctly contends that the records of the probate court must show that it had jurisdiction in the cases in which it acts. Still it does not necessarily follow that the petition shall aver everything which may be proved to authorize jurisdiction. We think the form of petition in this case is one which has been principally used in probate court practice in this state for many years, and still the form of allegation which the argument of the appellant prescribes as the correct one would no doubt be better...