In re Stroman's Estate

• Decision Date: 29 January 1946
• Parties: IN RE STROMAN'S ESTATE INDUSTRIAL HOSPITAL ASS'N. <I>v.</I> EGE
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

178 Or. 100

165 P.2d 576

IN RE STROMAN'S ESTATE

INDUSTRIAL HOSPITAL ASS'N. v. EGE

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued December 5, 1945.

Affirmed January 29, 1946.

Jury — Minors — Courts — Jurisdiction

1. While ordinary claim for money owing from minor is triable in circuit court of general jurisdiction as action at law, with right to jury trial, claims of equitable cognizance, triable in court of general jurisdiction sitting in equity without such right, may arise against minor.

Courts — Jurisdiction

2. The statute giving Multnomah county circuit court all jurisdiction formerly vested in probate courts of such county did not lessen or restrict such court's general jurisdiction.

Courts — Jurisdiction

3. The Multnomah county circuit court's broad jurisdiction over subject matter and remedies, as court of both general and probate jurisdiction, does not dispense with necessity of acquiring jurisdiction over person of party to litigation therein.

Guardian and ward — Courts — Jurisdiction

4. A hospital association had no right to proceed in probate department of Multnomah county circuit court for order directing injured minor's guardian to pay association amount of expenses incurred by it in furnishing medical and hospital services and supplies to minor under contract with his employer after payment into guardianship estate of amount of minor's judgment against railway company for damages, in absence of service of process on minor, even if such proceeding constituted plenary suit or action in circuit court of general jurisdiction.

Guardian and ward — Title to funds

5. The title to fund comprising minor's guardianship estate is in minor, not guardian.

Guardian and ward — Probate courts

6. In determining whether claim against minor's guardianship estate is within jurisdiction pertaining to probate courts and procedure is adequate to establish jurisdiction in such a court, fact that proceeding is in Multnomah county, wherein probate matters are tried by circuit court, is immaterial.

Constitutional law — Courts — Jurisdiction

7. The constitutional provision, creating county courts with jurisdiction pertaining to probate courts, granted such jurisdiction absolutely, and it could not be taken away nor enlarged.

Courts — Jurisdiction

8. The constitutional provisions, giving county courts jurisdiction pertaining to probate courts and such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by law, vests them with probate jurisdiction and authorizes Legislature to confer limited civil and criminal jurisdiction on them, but such jurisdictions are as separate and distinct as if conferred on separate tribunals.

Courts — Probate courts

9. County courts, when acting in probate matters, are courts of general jurisdiction entitled to all presumptions as such, but there is no presumption that any particular matter is one pertaining to probate courts within constitutional provision giving county courts jurisdiction pertaining to probate courts.

Courts — Jurisdiction

10. A court, proceeding without jurisdiction in particular case, cannot make valid record or confer any right or title therein, no matter how general its jurisdiction may be.

Courts — Probate courts

11. Probate courts, though courts of general jurisdiction within their field, have no common-law jurisdiction, but nature, extent and exercise of their jurisdiction depend on terms of constitutional or statutory grant thereof, and they cannot exercise any powers other than those expressly conferred on them or necessarily implied from powers so conferred, and their powers are not to be extended by construction or unnecessary implication.

Courts — Jurisdiction

12. The scope of probate jurisdiction under constitutional provisions, giving county courts jurisdiction pertaining to probate courts and other powers and duties prescribed by law, must be determined by ascertaining probate courts' jurisdiction under territorial government at time of adoption of Constitution.

Statutes — Courts — Jurisdiction

13. The California courts' construction of California statute respecting guardians' appointment and duties is persuasive as to construction of Oregon statute, taken from such California statute, and hence is relevant in construing phrase, "pertaining to probate courts," in provision of Oregon Constitution giving county courts jurisdiction pertaining to probate courts.

Guardian and ward — Contested claims

14. The statute requiring guardian to pay ward's debts, settle his accounts, collect or compound debts due him, and appear for and represent him in all legal suits and proceedings does not confer jurisdiction on probate court to adjudicate contested claims against guardianship estate, such as claims for amount of expenses

incurred by hospital association in furnishing medical and hospital services and supplies to injured minor ward under contract with his employer after payment into guardianship estate of amount of minor's judgment against railway company for damages.

Courts — Jurisdiction — Probate

15. The statute, giving county courts exclusive jurisdiction in first instance to direct and control conduct and settle accounts of executors, administrators and guardians and to order disposal of minor's property, added nothing to probate court's powers under Constitution previously adopted and is irrelevant in construing term, "jurisdiction pertaining to probate courts," in constitutional provisions giving county courts such jurisdiction.

Courts — Jurisdiction

16. The constitutional amendment, authorizing legislative enlargement of probate jurisdiction, did not of itself enlarge by construction previously enacted statutes defining such jurisdiction.

Guardian and ward — Accounts of guardian

17. A minor's guardian has authority to pay ward's uncontested just debts, and on so doing charges ward's estate with amounts paid and credits himself as guardian therewith in accounting to court, and he and his bondsmen are protected, if his accounts are finally approved.

Guardian and ward — Contested claims

18. In absence of constitutional or statutory provisions authorizing probate court or court of general jurisdiction sitting in probate to hear or allow claims against minor's guardian as such or against ward's estate, court has no such power.

Guardian and ward — Parties to action

19. Generally, an action on minor ward's liability must be maintained against ward, rather than guardian, though guardian may properly be named as a party defendant.

Gurdian and ward — Action — Parties

20. Generally, action at law does not lie against minor's guardian personally to recover for necessaries furnished ward, in absence of express contract or promise by guardian to pay therefor.

Infants — Service of process

21. A judgment or decree against, or affecting interest of, infant not served with process, is erroneous, and appointment of guardian ad litem or appearance or answer by such guardian does not bring infant before court.

Infants — Service of process

22. An infant can neither acknowledge nor waive legal service of process on him.

Infants — Service of process

23. The strict statutory provisions concerning service of process on infants must be complied with.

Jury — Infants — Service

24. An infant of suitable age to participate in defense of action against him is entitled not only to personal service of process and plenary proceedings, but also to jury trial, in proceedings to enforce claim against his guardianship estate, unless claimant presents issues of equitable cognizance.

Guardian and ward — Courts — Jurisdiction

25. The Multnomah county circuit court is without probate jurisdiction to try contested claims against minors under guardianship, and filing of petition in matter of guardianship of injured minor's estate for order directing guardian to pay from guardianship funds amount of expenses incurred by petitioner in furnishing medical and hospital services and supplies to minor under contract with his employer after payment into estate of amount of minor's judgment against railway company for damages did not confer on such court necessary jurisdiction over minor's person, in absence of service of process on him.

                  See 14 Am. Jur. 368
                  39 C.J.S., Guardian and ward, § 75
                

IN BANC.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

WALTER L. TOOZE, Judge.

This proceeding was instituted in the Probate Department of the Circuit Court for Multnomah County by a petition filed by the Industrial Hospital Association in the matter of the guardianship of the estate of Jerry C. Stroman, a minor, seeking an order directing payment to petitioner out of guardianship funds in the possession of Edwin Ege, guardian, in the amount of the expenses incurred by it in furnishing medical and hospital services and supplies to the minor. The case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the petitioner appeals.

AFFIRMED.

James G. Smith, of Portland (Maguire, Shields & Morrison, of Portland, on the brief), for petitioner-appellant.

Edward J. Clark, of Portland (Tanner & Clark, of Portland, on the brief), for guardian-respondent.

BRAND, J.

The petition alleges that the Hospital Association entered into a contract with Stebco Inc., a corporation, whereby it agreed to provide medical and hospital services and supplies to the employees of Stebco. The contract provided generally that, if an employee of Stebco should be injured by a third party, the Hospital Association should be subrogated to the rights of the employee against the third party to the extent of the disbursements expended by it for the benefit of the employee under the contract.

Jerry Stroman, a minor and an employee of Stebco, was injured by a train operated by the Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway Company and thereafter demanded that the Hospital Association bear his medical and hospital expenses as provided in the contract. The Hospital Association in performance of its contract incurred expense. Thereafter the...