Hines v. Hines

• Decision Date: 09 May 1912
• Citation: 147 S.W. 774
• Parties: HINES et al. v. HINES et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

147 S.W. 774

HINES et al. v. HINES et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 9, 1912.

Rehearing Denied June 1, 1912.

1. WILLS (§ 434)—FOREIGN PROBATE—OPERATION IN OTHER STATES.

Rev. St. 1909, § 569, providing that wills executed and proved in other states and attempting to convey land in this state may be contested in the courts of this state when an attempt is made to enforce them here, is not in conflict with Fed. Const. art. 4, § 1, prescribing that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

2. WILLS (§ 260) — CONTEST — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

The statute of limitations governing the contesting of foreign wills does not begin to run until a duly authenticated copy of the will, together with its probate, is recorded in the county of this state where the land devised is situated.

3. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS (§ 2)—LAW GOVERNING.

The Missouri statute of limitations as to will contests governs in suits for the contest of foreign wills.

4. WILLS (§ 432) — RES JUDICATA—WILL CONTEST.

A judgment in a will contest annulling the will was conclusive in a subsequent action though there was a defect of parties in the will contest to which no objection was there made.

5. JUDGMENT (§ 682)—RES JUDICATA—WILL CONTEST—PARTIES—GRANTEES.

In order for the judgment in a will contest to be binding upon grantees of the devisees, it is not necessary that the grantees be made parties.

6. WILLS (§ 744) — CONTEST—RIGHTS OF PURCHASER FROM DEVISEES.

Where a copy of a foreign will and of its probate was recorded in the county of this state where land devised was situated, and the devisees sold the land before the will was contested in this state, but prior to the expiration of the time allowed by Rev. St. 1909, § 569, for a contest, the purchaser took subject to any adjudication that might be made on a subsequent contest of the will.

7. JUDGMENT (§ 690) — CONCLUSIVENESS — CODEVISEES OR COLEGATEES.

Where a will is contested and adjudged to be no will as to the plaintiff, it is invalid as to any named devisee or legatee.

8. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION (§ 103)— ADVANCES — PROPERTY TAKEN UNDER INVALID WILL.

Where a will disposed of property in Arkansas as well as in Missouri, and the devisees of the Arkansas property received it, and subsequently the will was held invalid in a contest in this state, the devisees of the Arkansas property, upon a distribution between them and other heirs of the proceeds of a sale of the Missouri land, were chargeable with what they had received, as for advances made by the decedent in her lifetime.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Caldwell County.

Partition by Madison Hines and others against William H. Hines and others. From an interlocutory judgment determining the interests of the parties and ordering the real estate sold, defendants appeal. Reversed, with directions.

Action for partition of real estate in Caldwell county, Mo. From an interlocutory judgment of the circuit court of that county determining the interests of the parties and ordering the said real estate sold, the defendants Thomas Wesley Hines, William H. Hines, Lilian Hines, and Hamilton Savings Bank appeal.

The plaintiffs and defendants are the collateral heirs of one Matilda A. Higgins who died in the state of Arkansas on February 13, 1899, seised and possessed of about 840 acres of land in Caldwell county, Mo., also real and personal property in Carroll county, Ark.

The petition sets out the interest of each of the parties to the action. Some of the defendants answered admitting the allegations of the petition and consenting that partition be made as prayed. Defendant Thomas Wesley Hines filed a separate answer claiming sole ownership of 320 acres of the Missouri land, hereinafter designated as the Kidder farm, through a will executed by Matilda A. Higgins and admitted to probate in the state of Arkansas. Defendants William H. Hines and Lilian Hines also filed separate answers claiming to be sole owners of about 500 acres of land in Missouri devised by said will of Matilda A. Higgins and known as the Shoal Creek farm.

Said separate answers contained a copy of the will of Matilda A. Higgins and allege that a copy of said will, together with a judgment of the probate court of Carroll county, Ark., admitting the same to probate, duly authenticated, was filed with the recorder of deeds of Caldwell county, Mo., on May 2, 1902. Said separate answers admit that Emma Sloan, one of the plaintiffs in this action, instituted a suit in the circuit court of Caldwell county in the year 1902 to contest the aforesaid will of Matilda A. Higgins; that a final judgment was entered in said action annulling said will on account of the lack of testamentary capacity of the deceased. Said separate answer, however, alleges that the judgment of the circuit court of Caldwell County, annulling the will of Matilda A. Higgins, is void because: (1) The action to contest the will was barred because not instituted within three years after the will was probated, as required by the laws of the state of Arkansas; (2) that the circuit court of Caldwell county, Mo., possessed no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to contest a will duly probated in another state; (3) that some of the plaintiffs and defendants (hereinafter named) have accepted bequests under the terms of said will, and are therefore estopped from denying its validity; and (4) that all of the persons interested as devisees and legatees under the will of Matilda A. Higgins were not made parties to the said contest; (5) that, as Emma Sloan was the sole plaintiff in the will contest, the judgment in that case, if valid, could only operate to set aside the will as to her and not as to the other heirs of Matilda A. Higgins.

The defendants Hamilton Bank and Crosby Johnson in a separate answer allege that after the authenticated copy of the will of Matilda A. Higgins was filed in the office of the recorder of deeds in Caldwell county, Mo., and, before any suit was begun to contest the same, the defendant Thomas Wesley Hines borrowed from said bank the sum of $2,500 and executed to Crosby Johnson as trustee a deed of trust upon the Kidder farm (sought to be partitioned) to secure said loan, that said loan has not been paid, and that said bank and its trustee, Crosby Johnson, were not made parties to the aforesaid suit of Emma Sloan to contest the will of Matilda A. Haggins, therefore their interests are not bound by the judgment in said action.

Plaintiffs' reply alleges that all of the defendants except the Hamilton Bank and Crosby Johnson, trustee of said bank, were made parties to said will contest; that said bank and Crosby Johnson were not necessary parties to said action; that said will of Matilda A. Higgins was set aside and annulled at the July term, 1903, of the circuit court of Caldwell county; that all bequests under said will of Matilda A. Higgins which have been received by any of the parties to this action were derived from personal property of Matilda A. Higgins in the state of Arkansas; and that the acceptance of such bequests does not estop any of the parties to this action from claiming the real estate of deceased situated in Missouri.

It is conceded by the pleadings that the action of Emma Sloan under which the will of Matilda A. Higgins was contested and annulled was appealed to the Supreme Court, and that the judgment of the trial court was affirmed for the failure of appellants in said action to prosecute said appeal in accordance with the rules of this court. Such evidence as is necessary to a full understanding of the case will be recited in our opinion.

Crosby Johnson, C. C. Johnson, and J. M. Davis & Son, for appellants. John A. Cross and Pross T. Cross, for respondents.

BROWN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The first point we must consider is the legal effect of the suit of plaintiff Emma Sloan under which the will of Matilda A. Higgins was annulled. Did the circuit court of Caldwell county, Mo., have jurisdiction of the subject-matter of that action, and did it acquire jurisdiction of the parties?

The issues joined involve a construction of section 569, R. S. 1909, authorizing the contest of wills admitted to probate in other states in the same manner as wills executed and proven in this state. Does this section, as defendants contend, conflict with section 1, art. 4, of our federal Constitution, prescribing that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state? We do not understand that this section of the federal Constitution is of universal application.

While the decisions of this court show we have given full faith and credit to judgments rendered in other states where such judgments were rendered by courts having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties whose interests were adjudicated (Gould v. Crow, 57 Mo. 200; Anthony v. Rice, 110 Mo. 223, 19 S. W. 423), we think our General Assembly was acting within its proper sphere when it enacted section 569, supra, which provides that wills executed and proven in other states, attempting to convey land in this state, may be contested in the courts of this state when an attempt is made to put such wills in force here by placing them on the land records of our state.

This must necessarily be true for the reason that every state has full and exclusive power to determine by what methods real estate situated within its borders shall be conveyed or devised, and how the same shall pass by inheritance. Schulenberg v. Campbell, 14 Mo. 491; Richardson v. De Giverville, 107 Mo. 422, 17 S. W. 974, 28 Am. St. Rep. 426; Gaven v. Allen, 100 Mo. 293, 13 S. W. 501; Keith v. Keith, 97 Mo. 223, 10 S. W. 597; Lucas v. Tucker, 17 Ind. 41; Hughes v. Hughes, 14 La. Ann. 85; Sevier v. Douglas, 44 La. Ann. 605, 10 South. 804; White v. Howard, 52...