Holt v. Brackville

• Decision Date: 09 April 1923
• Docket Number: (No. 290.)
• Citation: 250 S.W. 33
• Parties: HOLT v. BRACKVILLE et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

250 S.W. 33

HOLT v. BRACKVILLE et al.

(No. 290.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 9, 1923.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; Richard M. Mann, Judge.

Proceedings by Daisy Foster Holt to have it adjudged that she is the daughter and sole heir at law of Victoria E. Foster, deceased, contested by Civility M. Brackville and others. From an adverse decree, the petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 153 Ark. 248, 239 S. W. 1059, 241 S. W. 32.

C. P. Harnwell, of Stephens, for appellant.

Horace Chamberlin, of Little Rock, for appellees.

HART, J.

Daisy Foster Holt prosecutes this appeal from a judgment of the circuit court holding that she was not the daughter of Victoria E. Foster, deceased, and therefore not entitled to inherit her estate under our statutes.

Victoria E. Foster died intestate in the city of Little Rock, Ark., owning certain property which is the subject of controversy in this case. An administrator of her estate was duly appointed by the probate court. No claims were filed or allowed against her estate. Daisy Foster Holt filed a petition in which she stated that she was the daughter of Victoria E. Foster, deceased, and her sole heir at law. Whereupon she asked that the estate of said decedent should be distributed to her under the general law of descent provided by section 3471 of Crawford & Moses' Digest. Appellees, who were the sisters of said decedent, asked and were allowed to contest her claim.

The probate court found that Daisy Foster Holt was the daughter of Victoria E. Foster and the sole heir of the estate of her deceased mother. Judgment was entered accordingly, and an appeal was duly prosecuted to the circuit court. There the case was tried before the court sitting as a jury. Daisy Foster Holt introduced testimony tending to show that she was the daughter and sole heir at law of Victoria E. Foster, deceased, and had been so recognized during her mother's lifetime.

It is the settled law in this state that the findings of fact made by a circuit court are as conclusive as the verdict of a jury, and will not be disturbed on appeal where the evidence is legally sufficient to support them. Thomas v. Thomas, 150 Ark. 43, 233 S. W. 808, and cases cited, and St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. v. Ellenwood, 123 Ark. 428, 185 S. W. 768.

In testing the correctness on appeal of the trial court's finding, this court will view such finding in its aspect most favorable to appellee. Therefore it will only be necessary to abstract the testimony of appellees in order to ascertain whether or not it is legally sufficient to support the finding made by the circuit court that Daisy Foster Holt was not the daughter of Victoria E. Foster, deceased.

This court has held that one who claims to be the heir of a decedent on the distribution of his estate must establish his right thereto. Brackville v. Holt, 153 Ark. 248, 239 S. W. 1059, 241 S. W. 32. In the application of this rule the circuit court correctly held that the burden of proof was upon appellant to show that she was the daughter and sole heir at law of the decedent, and therefore entitled to inherit her estate under our statute of descents and distributions.

Several witnesses were introduced to show that appellant was not the daughter of Victoria E. Foster, deceased. One of these was Leonora J. Carter, who was a sister of Mrs. Victoria E. Foster. Daisy Foster Holt in her testimony stated that she was born in August, 1881. According to the testimony of Mrs. Carter, she was at Mrs....