In re Singleton's Estate

• Decision Date: 15 April 1901
• Docket Number: 1,593.
• Parties: In re SINGLETON'S ESTATE.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

64 P. 513

26 Nev. 106

In re SINGLETON'S ESTATE.

No. 1,593.

Supreme Court of Nevada

April 15, 1901

Appeal from district court, Douglas county; C. E. Mack, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of Samuel Singleton, deceased. From a judgment in favor of Agnes Scossa, executrix, construing a deed as a testamentary writing, the heirs of Rebecca Singleton, widow of deceased, appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Torreyson & Summerfield, for appellants.

M Turner, for appellee administrator.

D. W Virgin and Trenmor Coffin, for other appellees.

BELKNAP J.

Ten years before his death, Samuel Singleton executed a writing in the form of a deed purporting to convey all his real and personal property to his wife. Afterwards he made a will bequeathing his property to his wife for life, and upon her death to his sister, Agnes Scossa, the executrix. Singleton died in November, 1898. His wife died a week later. Upon the settlement of the final report of the executrix a contention arose as to the construction to be given to the deed. The executrix claimed that she was entitled to the property, for the reason that the writing is testamentary in character, and revocable, and was revoked by the subsequent will, and that upon the death of Mrs. Singleton she became sole distributee. The heirs of the wife claimed under the deed. The district court sustained the contention of the executrix, and the heirs of Mrs. Singleton have appealed.

This statement of facts shows that there is a controversy in the probate court between the executrix of the above-named estate and the heirs of Mrs. Singleton claiming adversely to the estate of Samuel Singleton. The merits of the controversy have been twice argued upon this appeal, but no question made by counsel upon either side touching the jurisdiction of the district court in a probate proceeding upon an issue of title. After the submission of the second argument, and during our investigation of the case, the question of jurisdiction was suggested by a member of the court. The inquiry should be pursued by the court of its own motion, if not otherwise presented. It is a familiar doctrine of the law that want of jurisdiction by the court will render its judgments unavailable for any purpose; and, when a court is satisfied that it has not jurisdiction, it should proceed no further with the case. It is well established that the jurisdiction of probate courts does not extend to controversies between the estate and third persons not claiming under such estate or as creditors of it. "Questions of title to such estate--for example, arising not under a claim to receive it in the distribution of the estate, but adversely to such estate--do not fall within the jurisdiction of a probate court, nor can it determine the rights of strangers to property in the course of administration." Works, Courts & Jur. p. 441. "Since the functions of probate courts are limited, in respect of executors and administrators, to the...