In re Estate
Decision Date | 04 March 1895 |
Citation | 15 Mont. 474 |
Parties | In re HIGGINS' ESTATE. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Missoula county; F. H. Woody and Theo Brantly, Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court refusing to quash a former order, in compliance with the statute, directing Julia P. Higgins and others, qualified as executors and trustees, to file in said court a complete inventory and appraisement of the estate of their testator. Affirmed.
Appeal by Julia P. Higgins, Francis G. Higgins, and George C. Higgins, executors and trustees of the last will and testament of Christopher P. Higgins, deceased, from an order made by the district court overruling the motion of said executors and trustees to set aside an order made requiring said executors and trustees to file in said court a complete inventory and appraisement of the estate of the said Christopher P. Higgins, deceased, situated in the state of Montana, which has come into their hands as such executors. The order referred to recites that Francis G., George C., and Julia P. Higgins were on November 20, 1889, duly appointed executors of the last will and testament of Christopher P. Higgins, deceased, and all duly qualified as such executors on the 20th of November, 1889; that more than three years have elapsed since their qualification as such executors; and that no inventory and appraisement have been filed. The court therefore ordered that they prepare and file in said court, on or before July 8, 1893, a full inventory and appraisement of the estate of the deceased, and which had come into their hands as such executors, as required by law. The motion to set aside the order of the court was based upon the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter of said estate, coming under the probate laws of the state of Montana, to make any other order with reference to said estate, but that the jurisdiction to make any orders is vested by law in a court of equity; that a court of equity alone had jurisdiction with reference to said estate since the order probating the will; that the district court, as a court of probate, has no jurisdiction to make any order relating to said estate, or to direct the said Julia, Francis, and George Higgins to do any act in said estate. The motion was based upon the will, and affidavits of Francis G., George C., and Julia P. Higgins.
The will and testament is as follows:
Francis G. and George C. Higgins, each for himself, filed an affidavit to the effect that they were conversant with the condition of the estate of the decedent, and that at the time of his death he owned nothing; that the expenses of his last sickness and his funeral were paid; that the will was duly approved, admitted, and probated on November 16, 1889; and that no debts or claims of any kind have been presented to the executors and trustees. Julia P. Higgins, one one of the surviving executors and trustees, also swears that no claims have been presented, and that the funeral expenses and the expenses of the last illness of decedent were paid.
McConnell, Clayberg & Gunn and Webster & Wood, for appellant.
H. J. Haskell and Ella. L. Knowles, for respondent.
HUNT, J. (after stating the facts).
Whether or not the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in making an order requiring the executors of the will of decedent to file an inventory and accounting is the ultimate question to be decided by the court. But, in reaching a conclusion upon this very important case, it becomes proper to discuss several incidental questions involved: (1) The attitude of appellants towards the court, under the will of decedent. (2) If they are executors, what may the court say must be done by them under the law? (3) To what extent shall their executorial duties go before they may be discharged, if a discharge be necessary at all? (4) If trust duties are imposed by the terms of the will, at what period of time may there be a discharge of appellants as executors, and a distribution to them as trustees? We do not find it necessary to enter into any discussion of the question of what the rights of the appellants may have been had they never qualified as executors, or to examine at any length exactly what powers were conferred upon them independently of their executorial duties and the trusts imposed in the performance of such duties. The appellants stand before the court as having been named by the decedent as the executors off his will and testament, and as having voluntarily rendered themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the district court by duly petitioning for the probate of the will, and by duly receiving appointments as executors, according to law.
The will conferred authority upon the appellants to perform duties within the general powers of executors as such. It is not claimed, and could not be, we take it, that these executorial powers were illegally assumed, but merely that, although they were assumed by the appellants, still, under the provisions of the will, the title in fee to all of the estate of the decedent passed to and vested in the persons named executors, as trustees, immediately upon the death of the decedent. It is therefore contended that no inventory need be filed; that no notice to creditors need be given, and that, without proceeding any further than to probate the will, administration is unnecessary, and not demanded by the laws of the state; that no accounting is required by the executors as such; and that without any formal...
To continue reading
Request your trial- In re Agee's Estate
- Vincent's Estate, In re
-
Wheeler v. McKeon
... ... No objection was made by plea or otherwise prior to the trial. Conceding but not holding that the objection may be first made at the trial it is not well taken. By statute the administrator is entitled to the possession and to the rents and profits of the real estate of the decedent and may himself, or jointly with the heirs or devisees, maintain an action for the possession of the real estate or to quiet title to the same. G. S. 1913, 7296. The authorities upon the general question of the right of the personal representative to maintain an action to quiet ... ...
-
Wheeler v. McKeon
...162 N.W. 1070 137 Minn. 92 C. M. WHEELER v. HENRY McKEON AND OTHERS Nos. 20,245 - (81)Supreme Court of MinnesotaJune 1, 1917 ... Action ... in the district court for Pipestone county by the ... administrator of the estate of Catharine Grover, deceased, to ... cancel a land contract. The case was tried before Nelson, J., ... and a jury which returned a negative answer to the question: ... "At the time of making the contract, plaintiff's ... Exhibit H, was Catharine Grover mentally competent to make ... the same ... ...