Ex parte Stephens
| Decision Date | 19 November 1936 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 905 |
| Citation | 170 So. 771,233 Ala. 167 |
| Parties | Ex parte STEPHENS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Original petition of Vida Stephens, as administratrix of the estate of Martha V. Stephens, deceased, for mandamus to D.C. Halstead as judge of the Twentieth judicial circuit.
Mandamus awarded conditionally.
O.S Lewis, of Dothan, for petitioner.
Halstead & Smith, of Headland, and J.N. Mullins, of Dothan, for respondent.
This cause is before us on petition of Vida Stephens, as administratrix of the estate of Martha V. Stephens, deceased for mandamus directed to the Honorable D.C. Halstead, judge of the Twentieth judicial circuit of Alabama, requiring him as such judge to set aside and vacate an order made by him in and by which he denied to the petitioner the right to prosecute her "suit" as such administratrix for the sale of lands of the decedent for the payment of the debts of the estate.
The respondent judge has filed here his answer to the rule nisi issued from this court. In his answer, the respondent admits the essential allegations of the petition, but insists that, under the law, after the removal of the administration of the estate of the said Martha V. Stephens from the probate court of Houston county into the circuit court, in equity, of said county, the respondent, as judge of said court, "had it within his discretion to either grant or deny the said Vida Stephens, as administratrix, the right to sell the land to pay the debts of Martha V. Stephens, deceased; for that he had notice, through the channel of the original suit by the answer of the respondents in that suit, as well as by the petition filed in that suit by this petitioner, that the forty acres of land was the same land mentioned in the original suit, and that the estate of Martha V. Stephens, deceased, owed debts, and this respondent, as such court, had the power and it was his duty if and when the said forty acres of land was sold by the register of the circuit court, in equity, of Houston County, Alabama, in the original case brought for that purpose, to retain jurisdiction of the proceeds or funds arising from said sale, and to appropriate so much thereof as might be necessary to the payment of the debts, if any, owing by the said Martha V. Stephens, deceased, at the time of her death; and that although petitioner has given bond for the faithful discharge of her duties as such administratrix, this bond, as well as the petitioner, will be saved whole by proper orders of the circuit court of Houston County, Alabama, in equity, after the sale of the lands involved and after the proofs have come in pertaining to the debts of the estate of Martha V. Stephens, deceased, as well as all other matters pertaining to and concerning the title to the said forty acres of land."
The salient facts may be summarized as follows: Martha V. Stephens died intestate in Houston county on February 2, 1936; she left surviving her the following named persons as her only heirs at law, all of whom were over the age of twenty-one years: J.A. Stephens, Nettie Stephens, Vida Stephens, and Madie Knox. She died seized and possessed of a tract of land in Houston county, containing forty acres; she owed debts, and the personal property was insufficient to pay the same. On the 25th day of July, 1936, less than six months after the death of Mrs. Stephens, J.A. Stephens, one of the heirs, filed an original bill in the circuit court of Houston county, in equity, to sell the forty acres of land for division among the four joint owners, and summonses were duly issued and served upon the respondents; and these respondents filed their joint answer to the bill on September 7, 1936. In this answer the respondents set up that the estate of Martha V. Stephens owed debts; that the forty acres of land sought to be sold was subject to the payment of debts of the estate; and that the administratrix of said estate had filed her petition in the probate court of Houston county for an order of sale of said lands for the payment of the debts of said estate.
It also appears that the said Vida Stephens, after the filing of the bill by J.A. Stephens, applied to the probate court of Houston county for letters of administration upon the estate of the said Martha V. Stephens, and on the 10th day of August, 1936, letters of administration were duly issued to her. That on the 12th day of August, 1936, the said administratrix filed in the probate court of Houston county her petition in writing for the sale of said forty acres of land for the payment of the debts of said estate. Due notice of the proceeding was given the parties in interest, and the court--probate--set September 14, 1936, for the hearing of said petition. On September 1, 1936, the said J.A. Stephens, an heir at law of Martha V. Stephens, deceased, and the complainant in the bill filed in the circuit court for the sale of said forty acres of land for division, filed his petition in the circuit court of Houston county, seeking the removal of the administration of the estate of said decedent from the probate to the circuit court. On the same day, the judge of the circuit court made an order transferring the administration into the circuit court, in equity.
After this removal had been accomplished, the administratrix of said estate, the said Vida Stephens, filed her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Taylor
...Farley, 981 So.2d 392, 396 (Ala.2007) ; see also Estate of Autry v. McDonald, 332 So.2d 377, 379 (Ala.1976) ; Ex parte Stephens, 233 Ala. 167, 169, 170 So. 771, 773 (1936) ( ‘When the circuit court, in the exercise of its unquestioned jurisdiction, reached out and brought before it for admi......
-
Proctor v. Gissendaner
...payment of debts is wholly statutory and can be exercised only by the administrator and not by the heirs or devisees. Ex Parte Stephens, 233 Ala. 167, 170 So. 771 (1936). The statute therefore creates a duty which is peculiar to the administrator and for which he alone may be held personall......
-
McElhaney v. Singleton
...of estates in equity. In the instant case, the chancellor seems to have rested the granting of relief to respondents on Ex parte Stephens, 233 Ala. 167, 170 So. 771. We think he was correct in doing In the Stephens case, supra, the opinion shows that decedent died intestate February 2, 1936......
-
Loeb v. Callaway
... ... descent of the lands to the heirs. Calhoun v ... Fletcher, 63 Ala. 574; Banks v. Speers, 97 Ala ... 560, 562, 11 So. 841; Ex parte Stephens 233 Ala. 167, 170 So ... Hence, ... without further illustration, it is manifest that the estate ... of a person, in the ... ...