In re Long's Estate
| Decision Date | 24 September 1940 |
| Docket Number | 9047. |
| Parties | In re LONG'S ESTATE |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Percy H. Brown and T. L. Read, both of Hinton, for plaintiff in error.
T J. Lilly, F. W. Sawyers, and W. H. Sawyers, all of Hinton for defendant in error.
RILEY President.
B C. Long prosecutes this writ, erroneously called an appeal in Code, 58-3-4, and in her petition (see Ballouz v. Hart et al., 96 W.Va. 580, 123 S.E. 402; Miller v. Miller Adm'r, 117 W.Va. 138, 184 S.E. 246), to a judgment of the circuit court of Summers County entered on September 15, 1939, affirming an order of the county court of said county, which last-mentioned order confirmed the report of a commissioner of accounts rejecting her claim against the estate of her brother, T. J. Long, deceased.
Miss Long filed with the commissioner of accounts, before whom the estate was pending, a purported proof of claim in which she asserted title to certain certificates of deposit in the aggregate principal amount of $26,221.08, which she contends were given to her by her brother in consideration of certain services claimed to have been rendered by her to him over a period of about twenty years. These certificates, though containing an indorsement to plaintiff in error, were never endorsed by T. J. Long. The record discloses that Miss Long rendered the services as claimed; that the certificates were in her possession at the time of her brother's death; that the administrator of the estate requested that they be delivered to him conditionally and in return therefor he gave her a receipt; that, because of lack of proof that the indorsement was in decedent's own handwriting, the certificates were included in the appraisement of the estate.
It now devolves upon us to appraise again West Virginia Constitution, Article VIII, Section 24. This section deals with the powers of county courts, and, notwithstanding the broad provisions of Code 1931, 44-2 (providing for the procedure to be followed by commissioners of accounts in the settlement of estates), is all controlling. The section of the Constitution under consideration provides that, in addition to certain enumerated powers, county courts "may exercise such other powers, and perform such other duties, not of a judicial nature, as may be prescribed by law."
This court, in several cases, has had under consideration the powers of county courts under the foregoing section of the Constitution. In Hansbarger, Adm'r v. Spangler, 117 W.Va. 373, 375, 185 S.E. 550, it was held that Code, 44-2, deals primarily with the matter of debts against the estates of decedents and was not intended to afford a means of determining...
To continue reading
Request your trial