Idaho Trust Co. v. Miller

• Decision Date: 19 April 1909
• Citation: 102 P. 360,16 Idaho 308
• Parties: IDAHO TRUST CO., Trustee, Respondent, v. GEORGE T. MILLER, Administrator, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

102 P. 360

16 Idaho 308

IDAHO TRUST CO., Trustee, Respondent, v. GEORGE T. MILLER, Administrator, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 19, 1909

CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSON-REJECTION OF BY ADMINISTRATOR-ACTION TO RECOVER SAME-JURISDICTION TO TRY SUCH ACTION.

1. Under the provisions of sec. 5468, Rev. Codes, 1909, when a claim has been presented to an administrator and rejected by him, the holder must bring suit in the proper court against such administrator within three months after the date of its rejection, if it then be due, or within two months after it becomes due; otherwise the claim is forever barred.

2. The action required to be brought under the provisions of said section to recover the rejected claim, if it be a demand for money, is an action at law, and the rejection of the same by the administrator does not change the character of the claim or of the action required to be brought.

3. Under the provisions of sec. 20, art. 5 of the constitution the district court has original jurisdiction in all cases both in law and equity, but it does not have original jurisdiction in probate and guardianship matters, as the original jurisdiction in such matters is given to the probate court under the provisions of sec. 21 of said art. 5 of the constitution.

4. The proceedings in probate and guardianship matters in the probate court are not "cases" at law and equity under the provisions of sec. 20, art. 5 of the constitution.

5. Under the provisions of said sec. 20, art. 5 of the constitution, the district court has original jurisdiction to try the case at bar, and the probate court had no jurisdiction whatever to try it.

6. The court referred to in said sec. 5468, Rev. Codes 1909, as the "proper court," is the court that has jurisdiction under the constitution and laws of this state to hear and determine a civil action for the recovery of the debt sued on, and if the amount claimed is within the jurisdiction of the justice's or probate courts, action may be brought therein, and if it is not, the action must be brought in the proper district court.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, for Nez Perce County. Hon. Edgar C. Steele, Judge.

Action to recover on a claim against the estate of a deceased person which had been presented to and rejected by the administrator. Judgment for the plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs in favor of respondent. Petition for rehearing denied.

John O Bender, and G. Orr McMinimy, for Appellant.

The "proper court" mentioned in sec. 5468 is the probate court and not the district court; the district court has no original jurisdiction of claims presented to an administrator of an estate of a deceased person for payment but the probate court has exclusive original jurisdiction in such matters. (Clark v. Rossier, 10 Idaho 348, 78 P. 358; Abrams v. White, 11 Idaho 497, 83 P. 602; In re McVay's Estate, 14 Idaho 56, 93 P. 28.)

It is conclusively determined in the McVay case that the district court has no original jurisdiction of any probate matters, although they may involve equitable rights. (See, also, Clark v. Peck, 79 Vt. 275, 65 A. 14.)

F. D. Culver, and James E. Babb, for Respondent.

The question of jurisdiction of the district court is expressly decided against appellant's contention in the case of Bradwell v. Wilson, 158 Ill. 346, 42 N.E. 145. The constitutional provisions of Illinois in regard to probate jurisdiction are the same almost verbatim as those of the state of Idaho.

The following authorities seem from their citations to hold the same doctrine as announced in the Illinois case: Greene v. Day, 1 Dem. (N. Y.) 45, 50; Tucker v. Tucker, 4 Keyes, 136; Bowie v. Ghiselin, 30 Md. 553; Horner's Probate Laws (Ill.) 1881, sec. 201, citing Rosenthal v. Magee, 41 Ill. 370; Wells v. Miller, 45 Ill. 33; Judy v. Kelley, 11 Ill. 211, 50 Am. Dec. 455.

SULLIVAN, C. J. Stewart and Ailshie, JJ., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, C. J.

The respondent, the Idaho Trust Co., brought this action as trustee for one Kittie Sullivan, to recover a legacy claimed under the will of Sarah C. Thompson, deceased, against George T. Miller as administrator, with the will annexed of the estate of Cary A. Coryell, deceased. The claim was duly presented to the administrator for allowance and was rejected by him, and within three months after such rejection this action was brought in the district court under the provisions of sec. 5468, Rev. Codes of 1909, which section is as follows:

"When a claim is rejected, either by the executor or administrator, or the probate judge, the holder must bring suit in the proper court against the executor or administrator, within three months after the date of its rejection, if it be then due, or within two months after it becomes due, otherwise the claim is forever barred."

A general demurrer was filed to the complaint and overruled by the court. The defendant refused to further plead, and judgment was entered against the defendant as administrator.

There are two errors assigned. The first is that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the complaint. The demurrer was based on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The second error assigned is that the court erred in giving judgment, as the court was without jurisdiction to try and determine the matters alleged in the complaint. The question of the jurisdiction of the court cannot be raised on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. But counsel bases his contention on this appeal on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to try and determine said case. The objection to the jurisdiction of the court may be raised for the first time in this court. That being true, the court will proceed and pass upon the question of the jurisdiction of the court to try the case.

This was an original action brought in the district court, and it is contended that the district court had no jurisdiction, as the subject matter of the action was a matter over which the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction. It is contended under the provisions of said section 5468 that the holder of such claim, after rejection, must bring suit in the "proper court" against the administrator, etc. It is most earnestly contended that the probate court has exclusive, original jurisdiction in all probate matters, and for that reason the district court has no original jurisdiction to try said action, and in support of that contention counsel cite Clark v. Rossier, 10 Idaho 348, 78 P. 358; Abrams v. White, 11 Idaho 497 83 P. 602; In re McVay's Estate, 14 Idaho 56, 93 P. 28. Neither of those cases is in point on the question under consideration. Those cases involve matters over which the probate court had exclusive, original jurisdiction; in other words, they involve exclusively probate...