Holdsomebeck v. Fancher

• Decision Date: 10 June 1896
• Citation: 20 So. 519,112 Ala. 469
• Parties: HOLDSOMEBECK v. FANCHER ET AL. FANCHER ET AL. v. HOLDSOMEBECK.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

20 So. 519

112 Ala. 469

HOLDSOMEBECK v. FANCHER ET AL.

FANCHER ET AL. v. HOLDSOMEBECK.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 10, 1896

Appeal from probate court, Bibb county; M. Y. Hayes, Judge.

Submission to arbitration between E. W. Holdsomebeck, administrator, as plaintiff, and Mollie O. Fancher and others, as defendants. From the decree, plaintiff appeals, and defendants assign cross errors. Dismissed.

E. W Holdsomebeck, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of John Latham, deceased, filed his petition in the probate court of Bibb county, in which he averred that there was a dispute existing between him, as such administrator, and the certain named heirs of the widow of John Latham, deceased, as to certain personal property which had been set apart to the widow of the petitioner's intestate, and to which, after said widow's death, her heirs laid claim, and that a part of said property was in the hands of the petitioner, and a part was in the hands of said heirs. After such averments the petitioner prayed for an order, as provided by section 2183 of the Code, allowing him to submit said dispute as to the ownership of the personal property to arbitration. On the day of the filing of the petition the probate court granted the petition, and made an order authorizing the submission of the dispute to arbitration. Pursuant to said order, the arbitrators made their award, and returned into court the articles of agreement to submit to arbitration, which were duly accepted by the court, and the award was made thereon. The heirs of Mrs. Latham appeared as defendants, and filed their objections to said award, assigning several grounds thereto. There were then motions made by the administrator to strike these objections from the file, upon several different grounds, which it is unnecessary to notice. These motions were overruled. Upon considering the grounds of objections filed by the defendants, the court sustained three of them and overruled the other grounds. To the sustaining of the three grounds of objection the administrator duly excepted and to the overruling of the other grounds of objection to said award the defendants duly excepted. The administrator then moved the court to have said award entered up as a decree of said probate court, on the ground that the parties had signed the articles of submission, in which they agreed that said award should be entered up as the decree of the court. The court overruled this motion, refused to enter the award as the decree of the court, and rendered a decree sustaining the said three grounds of objection to said award above referred to. The administrator appeals from this decree, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court to which he reserved exceptions. The defendants prosecuted a cross appeal, and assigned as error the decree of the court overruling some of the grounds of their objection to said award.

Ellison, Jones & Mayfield, for defendants.

HEAD J.

Section 2183 of the Code provides that "on the settlement of the estate of a decedent, when such estate is free from debt, the probate court in which such settlement may be pending has authority to refer all matters of controversy, arising in such settlement, to arbitration, if in the opinion of the court, the interests of the parties can be best subserved thereby, and the parties, or their attorneys, consent thereto"; and the subsequent sections of the article contain further provisions for the appointment of the arbitrators, the making of the award, the entry thereof as the judgment of the court, or its setting aside, if not approved. It is an entire misconception to suppose that the...