Ferguson v. Connell

• Decision Date: 16 May 1930
• Docket Number: 40100
• Citation: 230 N.W. 859,210 Iowa 419
• Parties: BURNET FERGUSON, Administrator, Appellee, v. ROY L. CONNELL et al., Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

230 N.W. 859

210 Iowa 419

BURNET FERGUSON, Administrator, Appellee, v. ROY L. CONNELL et al., Appellants

No. 40100

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 16, 1930

Appeal from Page District Court.--W. C. RATCLIFF, Judge.

This was a proceeding by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants $ 7,243, with accrued interest.Basis for the action was an alleged illegal and unauthorized administration of the Floyd E. Jackson estate in the Linn Countydistrict court.Roy L. Connell, defendant, was the administrator appointed by the Linn Countycourt, and the defendantNational Surety Company of New York City was the surety on the administrator's bond.Part of the trust assets were distributed by the Linn Countycourt order to Eugene Connell.It is claimed by the plaintiff that the Linn County administrator was without jurisdiction, and that the administration and distribution of the estate thereunder were a nullity.Hence it is asserted that the plaintiff, who was later appointed administrator of the said estate by the Page Countydistrict court, has jurisdiction of the decedent's property.The distribution under the Linn County proceedings being void, plaintiff claims that he is entitled to recover the above-named sum from the defendants.There was a trial to a jury, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.

Reversed.

John P Hampton and Wilson, Brown & Wilson, for appellants.

L. E Thompson and Ferguson & Ferguson, for appellee.

KINDIGJ. MORLING, C. J., and EVANS, FAVILLE, and GRIMM, JJ., concur.

OPINION

KINDIG, J.

Floyd E. Jackson, who was an American soldier in the late war with Germany, died during July, 1918, in the service of his country, at Chateau Thierry, in France.At the time of his death, he carried a war risk insurance policy for $ 10,000, payable in annual installments to Albert Jackson so long as the latter lived.This beneficiary, Albert Jackson, died in St. Joseph, Missouri, during July, 1925.Said annual installments above-mentioned were received by the beneficiary to the extent that, when he died, there remained due under the policy only $ 7,243.The concession is made, for the purposes of this case, that, under the Federal law, the balance aforesaid became payable to the estate of the insured, Floyd E. Jackson.So, on September 30, 1925, an application for the appointment of an administrator of the Floyd E. Jackson estate was made in Linn County by the defendant-appellantRoy L. Connell.That appellant was the uncle of Floyd E. Jackson.On October 2, 1925, the Linn Countydistrict court appointed the applicant, Roy L. Connell, as administrator of said estate, and fixed the administrator's bond at $ 10,000.Complying with the court's order, the administrator, on October 3, 1925, furnished the bond, upon which the defendant-appellantNational Surety Company of New York City was surety.Thereafter, the insurance money was collected, distribution thereof made, and the administration in all respects proceeded in the regular way until May 5, 1927, when the estate was finally closed, the administrator discharged, and the surety on his bond exonerated.

Listed as the heirs of Floyd E. Jackson in the Linn County probate proceedings were the appellantRoy L. Connell, of Cedar Rapids, the defendant-appellantEugene Connell, of Clarinda, both uncles, and Maude Hayes, of Excelsior Springs, Missouri, and Bessie Walker, of St. Joseph, Missouri, both aunts.These aunts and uncles were the sisters and brothers, respectively, of Nora Jackson(nee Nora Connell), who was the mother of Floyd E. Jackson, deceased.It is claimed by appellants that Floyd E. Jackson was the illegitimate son of Nora Connell, and that Albert Jackson, the beneficiary aforesaid, was not his natural father, but a stepfather.Nora Connell and the beneficiary, Albert Jackson, married about two years after the birth of the insured, Floyd E. Jackson.Contention is made by the plaintiff-appellee that Albert Jackson, after his marriage to Nora Connell, the mother of Floyd, so recognized the child as his own as to establish the relationship of father and son.Nora Connell Jackson died in the year 1900.

Appellee was appointed administrator of the Floyd E. Jackson estate in Page County on May 3, 1927.Application for said appointment was made by the alleged heirs of the beneficiary, Albert Jackson, their claim being that they were entitled to receive the proceeds of said insurance through the alleged father, Albert Jackson.Before the administration was completed in the Linn Countydistrict court, Fredericka Stiverson appeared therein, and set up a claim to the insurance money for herself and others similarly situated.Fredericka Stiverson and the others for whom she appeared in the Linn Countycourt are the alleged heirs of Floyd E. Jackson, who, according to the administrator in Page County, are entitled to the insurance money.Dismissal of the claim in the Linn County proceedings was made by Fredericka Stiverson for herself and the others she represented, and the claimant withdrew from that proceeding.Subsequently, on May 6th, the present suit was commenced, for the purpose, as before stated, of recovering from the appellants the $ 7,243 war insurance money previously described.To put the thought in another way, the appellee, as administrator, desires to obtain possession of the funds aforesaid in order that they may be delivered to the heirs, not of the mother, Nora Connell, but of the purported father, Albert Jackson.

Because of the jurisdictional question involved, we do not decide or suggest who are the heirs of Floyd E. Jackson, or in what proportion they inherit.Many matters are extensively briefed and argued by the parties, but, for the purposes of this appeal, the material issues, we find, are confined to the following propositions: First, that the Linn Countydistrict court did not have jurisdiction to appoint the administrator and conduct the administration, for the reason that Floyd E. Jackson, at the time of his death, so it is alleged, was a resident, not of Linn County, but of Page County; and, second, the appellantRoy L. Connell, through fraud, induced the Linn Countydistrict court to accept jurisdiction of the subject-matter.

For answer to the first proposition aforesaid, the appellants maintain that the Linn Countydistrict court, so far as the probate record shows, did have jurisdiction, and therefore the same cannot be collaterally attacked.Any attack which may be made upon the jurisdiction in the premises, appellants argue, must be direct, as distinguished from collateral.By way of answer to the second contention made by appellee concerning the fraud, appellants argue that the evidence does not sustain the allegation.Such, in a general way, is a statement of the problem presented.

I.Assuming there was no fraud in the institution of the proceedings, did the Linn Countydistrict court have jurisdiction so far as a collateral attack is concerned?This is the first question.The Code of 1924 contains the following provisions:

"Section 10763.The district court of each county shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction:

"1. * * * to grant administration upon the estates of, all persons who at the time of their death were residents of the county, and of nonresidents of the state who die leaving property within the county subject to administration, or whose property is afterwards brought into the county. * * *"

"Section 11825.The court of the county in which * * * administration [of a decedent's estate] * * * is granted, shall have jurisdiction coextensive with the state in the settlement of the estate and the sale and distribution thereof."

In 1920, this court, after reviewing many cases, finally concluded that the judgment of the district court first assuming jurisdiction over probate proceedings could not be collaterally attacked unless the records thereof disclosed no jurisdiction.In re Estate of Kladivo,188 Iowa 471, 176 N.W. 262.During the discussion in the Kladivo case, we said:

"The doctrine that administration [of an estate] granted in a county other than that of decedent's residence at the time of his death is voidable, rather than void, tends for conservatism, and will avoid largely the evil consequences which might follow in the wake of a different conclusion.Where the question, as in this case, is one of doubt as to the county to which administration belongs, there might be two administrations, debtors might be subjected to verdicts by different juries, and possibly two judgments for the same debt, but by different courts.Confusion might result as to the title of property, both real and personal.We are contented with the doctrine which has prevailed in this state for more than 40 years, and have no hesitancy in deciding that administration granted by the district court of Linn County[in the Kladivo case] may be assailed only by direct attack, and, until thus assailed and set aside, there can be no administration of the estate in any other county.In other words, there can be but one grant of administration on the same estate, and jurisdiction, having once attached, will continue until set aside on direct attack by someone interested in the estate."

Of course, if the judgment record discloses that the district court did not have jurisdiction, then the judgment may be collaterally attacked.In re Estate of King,105 Iowa 320, 75 N.W. 187.But if the application for the appointment of the administrator or the judgment record sets forth jurisdictional facts, an attack on the judgment cannot be made collaterally; for, when the court recites facts, the record is a verity, so far as a collateral attack is concerned.In re Estate of Kladivo(188 Iowa 471176 N.W. 262)...