Davenport's Estates, In re
| Citation | 79 Idaho 548,323 P.2d 611 |
| Decision Date | 27 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 8593,8593 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATES of Mary DAVENPORT, Deceased, and James Davenport, Deceased. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Grant L. Ambrose, Meridian, Robert T. Miller, Boise, for appellants.
Randall Wallis, J. Charles Blanton, Boise, for respondents.
Elam & Burke, Boise, for administrator.
On June 7, 1956, near the village of Bliss, Idaho, an elderly couple were killed in an automobile accident. The decedents were on their way home from a trip, and after coming up a grade they entered into the main interstate highway, at which place their car collided with a truck. The Davenports died as a result of injuries suffered in the collision.
Following their deaths, their estates were filed for probate in the Probate Court of Ada County, Idaho. The probate proceedings disclosed that both decedents died intestate, leaving real and personal property, which was situated in Ada County, Idaho. All of the decedents' estates were community property, and the two estates were joined in probate proceedings. All of the assets, both real and personal, were reduced to cash in the sum of $21,759.71, as is shown by the final account.
The petition for distribution by the administrator set forth the names of all the heirs, who on the side of James Davenport are four sisters, five nephews, and five nieces, whereas the heirs of Mary Davenport are one brother, one sister, two nieces, and one nephew.
The administrator's petition for distribution recites James and Mary Davenport died simultaneously, and that the heirs of both decedents are entitled to inherit said estates in accordance with the Simultaneous Death Statute, under which one-half would go to the heirs of James Davenport and one-half to the heirs of Mary Davenport.
To this petition for distribution, the heirs of Mary Davenport filed an objection upon the grounds that James Davenport predeceased Mary Davenport, and because of her survivorship, title to the entire estate vested in the heirs of Mary Davenport. To this objection, the heirs of James Davenport filed an answer praying that the administrator's petition for distribution, setting out one-half of the combined estates to each side of the family, be approved.
Sitting without a jury, the probate judge entered a finding that the heirs of Mary Davenport had failed to sustain the burden of proof to show she in fact survived her husband, and entered a decree of distribution in accordance with the administrator's petition for distribution.
From the decree of distribution, the heirs of Mary Davenport appealed to the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Ada, wherein a trial de novo was held. The District Judge concluded that Mary Davenport survived her husband, and denied the administrator's petition for distribution, and further ordered that all assets of the joint estates be distributed to the heirs of Mary Davenport. From the judgment of the district court, the heirs of James Davenport have appealed to this Court.
The several assignments of error may be summarized in substance and effect that the trial court on insufficient evidence entered a judgment as to survivorship.
There were six witnesses who testified about their observations of the Davenports immediately after the accident.
Bobby Jones was the first witness to reach the scene of the accident, and he testified that the body of James Davenport was badly mangled, that the body appeared to be 'pretty near tore in two,' and that he could not observe any breathing, flow of blood, or movement on the part of James Davenport. After having observed the body of James Davenport, Jones then went to where Mary Davenport was lying in the car. He observed the breathing of Mary Davenport, which he could both see and hear, and he also observed the bleeding from her nose. Jones testified this breathing by Mary Davenport continued for about 15 minutes following the accident.
Varge Henderson, who was one of the next to view the scene, testified that the body of James Davenport was badly mangled, that the legs were twisted badly, that the body appeared to be badly cut in through the hip on the left side, that there was no movement of the body, that there was no breathing, and that there was no flow of blood. After viewing the body of James Davenport, Henderson went to the car in which Mary Davenport was lying. At that time, he observed definite movement of her chest and a gasping for air or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowley's Estate, In re
...136 Cal.App. 521, 523, 29 P.2d 275; United Trust Company v. Pyke, supra, 199 Kan. 1, 6, 427 P.2d 67, 72; In re Davenport's Estates (1958) 79 Idaho 548, 552, 323 P.2d 611, 613; Schmitt v. Pierce, supra, 344 S.W.2d 120, 123--124; and see cases reviewed at pp. 132--133; Prudential Insurance Co......
-
Schmitt v. Pierce
...was no conflicting testimony. See also Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Spain, 339 Ill.App. 476, 90 N.E.2d 256; In re Davenport's Estates, 79 Idaho 548, 323 P.2d 611; Thomas v. Anderson, 96 Cal.App.2d 371, 215 P.2d 478; Smith v. Smith, Ark., 317 S.W.2d 275; White v. Taylor, 155 Tex. 392, 2......
-
Moran's Estate, In re
...262, 67 Cal.Rptr. 847 (survivor was breathing, gasping and moaning and had extensive bleeding from the ears); In re Estates of Davenport (1958), 79 Idaho 548, 323 P.2d 611 (survivor was breathing and bleeding from the nose); Sauers v. Stolz (1950), 121 Colo. 456, 218 P.2d 741 (survivor had ......
-
In re Estates of Perry
...is from that order. 3. The Act is inapplicable if there is "sufficient evidence" that one party survived the other. In re Davenport, 323 P.2d 611, 79 Idaho 548 (1958); Smith v. Smith, 317 S.W.2d 275, 229 Ark. 579 (1958); Sauers v. Stolz, 218 P.2d 741, 121 Colo. 456 4. Although Hill argues t......