Hanen v. Lenander

• Citation: 160 N.W. 18,178 Iowa 569
• Decision Date: 23 November 1916
• Docket Number: 30845
• Parties: MARY HANEN et al., Appellee, v. C. J. LENANDER, Administrator, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

160 N.W. 18

178 Iowa 569

MARY HANEN et al., Appellee, v. C. J. LENANDER, Administrator, Appellant

No. 30845

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

November 23, 1916

Appeal from Kossuth District Court.--N. J. LEE, Judge.

ACTION at law to recover damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of defendant's intestate. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Sullivan & McMahon, E. A. Morling and E. V. Swetting, for appellant.

W. D Quarton, S.D. Quarton and Harrington & Dickinson, for appellee.

WEAVER J. EVANS, C. J., DEEMER and PRESTON, JJ., concur.

OPINION

WEAVER, J.

The plaintiff is a minor of about 15 years of age. She alleges that on October 1, 1913, she was at her home in Kossuth County, Iowa. She avers that on the day named the deceased, Ross Richmond, together with two other boys or young men, came to her home in an automobile, and while there invited her to enter the car and ride with them; that she accepted the invitation; that the car driven by Richmond made a trip to a distance of several miles; and that on the return trip Richmond drove in such a negligent and reckless manner as to overturn the car, whereby plaintiff sustained a fracture of her leg and collar bone, resulting in great physical pain and mental anguish on her part, and causing the injured leg to be materially shortened, for all of which she asks a recovery of damages. The defendant denies the claim generally. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment in plaintiff's favor for $ 2,000. In their brief filed in this court, appellant's counsel state three points on which they rely for reversal, as follows:

I. Appellants contend that plaintiff is not entitled to maintain an action at law against the administrator. Stated otherwise, the proposition is that, to recover against the estate of deceased, she should have filed her claim in the probate proceedings for allowance against the administrator. This question has been thoroughly well settled against the position taken by counsel. Cooley v. Smith, 17 Iowa 99; Sterritt v. Robinson, 17 Iowa 61; McCrary v. Deming, 38 Iowa 527, 531; Crane v. Guthrie, 47 Iowa 542; Moore v. McKinley, 60 Iowa 367, 370, 371, 14 N.W. 768; Clough v. Ide, 107 Iowa 669, 671, 78 N.W. 697; Easton v. Somerville, 111 Iowa 164, 170, 82 N.W. 475; Iowa-Minnesota Land Co. v. Conner, 136 Iowa 674, 676, 677, 112 N.W. 820; Campbell v. Collins, 152 Iowa 608, 616, 132 N.W. 381; First Nat. Bank v. Green, 59 Iowa 171, 13 N.W. 75.

Properly speaking, we have in our judicial system no "probate court," as a distinctive and separate tribunal. We have a district court of general jurisdiction, a jurisdiction which includes all the powers, functions and authority usually vested in courts of probate in other states where such distinct and separate tribunals are provided. It is the district court in which wills are probated, administrators and executors are appointed, and estates of decedents are settled. It is the district court which has jurisdiction to allow claims against estates, and in which issues joined on contested claims are tried, precisely as all other law issues are tried. As a matter of convenient classification, and to avoid confusion of records, separate dockets and journals are provided in which probate business is entered, and ordinarily the district court in each county is provided with a separate desk calendar or minute book for probate cases; but, so far as the rights of the parties and the jurisdiction of the court are concerned, it is wholly immaterial whether one having a claim against an estate presents it in the informal manner allowable in such cases, and has it entered upon the distinctive probate docket, or embodies it in a formal petition, as in ordinary cases at law, and has it entered upon the court's general docket. In the case of a contested claim, triable to a jury, its entry upon the general docket is peculiarly appropriate. For reasons already suggested, it is doubtless better, in most cases, that all matters connected with the settlement of an estate should be entered on the docket provided for that special purpose, and courts will doubtless see to it that such practice is observed; but if, finding a case of that character on the general docket, the court leaves it there, and disposes of it after the manner of ordinary cases, it is a mere matter of discretion on its part, by which no one is prejudiced. It is a matter of orderly bookkeeping, and not of jurisdiction. Should the administrator against whom the claim is asserted desire to take advantage of any alleged mistake as to the place of filing or presenting it, his remedy, if any, is to move the court to order a change into the proper proceedings; and, if the point is well taken, the order will be made without dismissal or abatement of the action. Code Section 3432; First Nat. Bank v. Green, 59 Iowa 171, 172, 13 N.W. 75; Easton v. Somerville, 111 Iowa 164, 82 N.W. 475.

In this connection, it is also objected that the defendant is, merely by way of description, named "C. J. Lenander Administrator of the Estate of Ross Richmond," but is not sued as administrator, and that, while the petition alleges that Lenander is the duly appointed administrator of the estate of Ross Richmond, it does not disclose in what county the appointment was made. It may be admitted that the representative character of the defendant would be better and more technically and accurately stated had the writer of the petition been more explicit in the respects pointed out by defendant's counsel, but the statement, as made, is not so lacking in clearness as to justify any interference with the verdict. The title or caption of the petition, together with the allegations of the petition itself, constitutes a claim or declaration that plaintiff was injured without fault on her part by the negligence of Richmond, who is now dead, and that she is asking, in this proceeding, to recover her damages so sustained, from the estate of deceased, of which estate Lenander is administrator. The omission of the word "as" before the word "administrator" in the caption is not an unusual example of technical inexactness, but, as it is followed immediately by a distinct declaration that sad defendant is the duly appointed and acting administrator of Richmond's estate, and by a statement of her claim or cause of action against said...