Hines v. Hines

• Decision Date: 15 January 1920
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 919
• Citation: 203 Ala. 633,84 So. 712
• Parties: HINES v. HINES et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

84 So. 712

203 Ala. 633

HINES v. HINES et al.

6 Div. 919

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 15, 1920

Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1920

Appeal from Probate Court, Jefferson County; J.P. Stiles, Judge.

Contest between Emma Hines and Anna Hines and others for appointment as administratrix of the estate of Sam (or Elias) Hines. From the decree granting letters to Anna Hines, Emma Hines appeals. Affirmed.

Pinkney Scott, of Bessemer, for appellant.

Mathews & Mathews, of Bessemer, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

This appeal brings up for review the action of the probate court of Jefferson county in appointing an administratrix of the estate of Sam or Elias Hines, deceased. The asset of the estate mentioned in the petitions is a claim for damages resulting from the death of the decedent.

On the same date two women filed their respective petitions for appointment as administratrix of the estate. Each averred that she was the widow of the decedent. One, Emma Hines (appellant), gave the decedent, referred to in her petition the name of Sam Hines; and the other, Annie (appellee), gave the decedent, referred to in her petition, the name of Elias Hines. On December 31, 1918, the probate court, after hearing at Bessemer, in Jefferson county, decided the issues in favor of Emma Hines, declared Emma to be the widow of Sam Hines deceased, and ordered letters of administration issued to Emma, suspending the issuance of letters until 30 days for appeal by Annie should expire. On January 4, 1919, Annie filed her petition for rehearing of the contest so decided on December 31, 1918; the court's order reciting that "the parties appearing consented that the court should hear the petition in Birmingham," and setting the hearing for January 16, 1919, at Birmingham. On January 16 1919, the court, "by agreement of counsel," passed the matter to January 27, 1919, "that being the regular court day at Bessemer," in Jefferson county. In the record, over date of January 4, 1919, the attorney for Emma Hines appears to have executed a writing containing this:

"*** And consent that the same [i.e., the motion for rehearing] be set for hearing before the judge of probate 17th January, at Birmingham at any time after the 4th day of January, 1919."

The subsequent "agreement of counsel," recited in the court's record under date of January 16, 1919, appears to have annulled the written agreement just above mentioned; the proceeding being then passed to January 27, 1919, at Bessemer. The hearing of the motion for rehearing seems to have taken place at Bessemer on the 27th day of January, 1919, counsel being present. As recited in the order of date January 27, 1919, the court received submission of the matter of the motion for rehearing and the affidavits supporting and opposed thereto, and took the cause under "advisement," and on January 29, 1919, awarded the rehearing or new trial at Birmingham. Appellant insists the probate court was without jurisdiction to make the order granting the new trial at Birmingham; that the court could only perform that judicial function at Bessemer, whereat, under the act approved September 16, 1915 (Gen.Acts, pp. 549-553; Board of Revenue, etc., v. Huey, 195 Ala. 83, 70 So. 744) particularly section 9 thereof, the probate court must be held at stated times (special or adjourned terms thereat being authorized) for the disposition of matters arising within a territorial area surrounding the city of Bessemer. Neither objections to the action taken by the court at Birmingham in this proceeding nor anything else suggestive of the impropriety of taking action at Birmingham, instead of at Bessemer, appears to have been brought to the attention of the probate court.

The act above noted constitutes Bessemer a branch headquarters away from the county seat at Birmingham, for the purposes therein defined. The probate court is required to be held at Bessemer at certain or otherwise lawfully fixed times. The probate court of Jefferson county has jurisdiction coextensive with the confines of the county. It is a court of general jurisdiction, coextensive with the county, where the appointment of administrators is concerned. The act noted did not effect or intend the creation of two probate courts in Jefferson county. The act's effect was to assign the venue--not the jurisdiction over a subject-matter within the competency of such courts--of matters arising in a defined area to judicial cognizance at Bessemer, thereby establishing at Bessemer a mere branch, department, or division of the single unit, the probate court of Jefferson county. Singleton v. Jackson, 177 Ala....