James v. Gibson

• Decision Date: 24 December 1904
• Citation: 84 S.W. 485
• Parties: JAMES et al. v. GIBSON et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

84 S.W. 485

JAMES et al. v. GIBSON et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 24, 1904.

Appeal from Crittenden Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor.

Suit by Emily C. James and others against D. E. Gibson and others to set aside the allowance of a claim by a probate court and the sale of lands made to pay the same. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Dr. D. E. Gibson, Sr., a citizen and resident of Shelby county, Tenn., died in November, 1878, leaving a will devising all of his property, after the payment of his debts, to his wife, Emma M. Gibson, for life, with remainder, one-half to his nephews, D. E. Gibson, one of the appellees, and the other one-half to the appellants, children of the testator's brother, Addison Gibson, and naming the said Emma M. Gibson and D. E. Gibson as executrix and executor of his will. At the time of his death he owned a plantation in Crittenden county, Ark., and crop, live stock, and farming implements thereon, and also a house and lot at Gill Station, Tenn., where he resided, and a lot of personal property. Mrs. Gibson and D. E. Gibson qualified as executors in the probate court of Shelby county, Tenn., and filed an inventory showing that they had taken possession of all the personalty, being $644 in value in Shelby county, and $1,121 in value in Arkansas. D. E. Gibson filed three settlement accounts, the first on January 12, 1881, and the final one on May 17, 1889, which settlement accounts were confirmed by that court. The final account showed that D. E. Gibson had paid out for the estate the sum of $2,258.39 in excess of the amount of assets which had come into his hands, but in none of his accounts did he charge himself with the value of the Arkansas personalty. In July, 1893, letters of administration were issued from the probate court of Crittenden county to C. G. Fox, one of the appellees, upon the estate of the decedent, Dr. D. E. Gibson, Sr., and in January, 1894, D. E. Gibson filed, as a claim against the estate, the balance shown in his favor in his final settlement account, in the probate court of Shelby county, together with the sum of $1,271.73 interest, making a total of $3,530.12, which was allowed by the Crittenden probate court as a claim against the estate. At the July term, 1894, of the Crittenden probate court, appellee Gibson procured an order for the sale of the Arkansas lands for the purpose of raising funds to pay off his claim, which order directed a sale to be made on the 14th of August, 1894. This order was not complied with, and the administrator, without any renewal of the order having been made, sold the lands on the 10th day of March, 1896, and the same were bought by the appellee, Gibson. The sale has not been confirmed by the probate court.

This suit was commenced on August 21, 1896, by appellants, the children of Addison Gibson, as owners of the half of the Arkansas property in remainder, in the chancery court of Crittenden county, against appellees, D. E. Gibson and C. G. Fox, alleging that the entire dealings of D. E. Gibson with the estate of Dr. Gibson were fraudulent; that the alleged judgment procured in the probate court of Shelby county and the allowance thereof by the Crittenden probate court were fraudulent, illegal, and void; and that the attempted sale of the plaintiff's interest in the Arkansas lands was also fraudulent and void. They alleged that the executor had failed to charge himself with the value of the Arkansas personalty, or the rents from the Arkansas plantation, and other items which came into his hands; that he had claimed credit for several large amounts to which he was not entitled; and that he had failed to plead the statute of limitations in bar of a number of claims against the estate, as he was bound to do under the laws of Tennessee. The prayer of the complaint was that the allowance of this claim by the probate court of Crittenden county, and the sale of lands made to pay for same, be set aside, and for other relief. On the hearing of the case the chancellor held that the allowance of the claim by the probate court was proper, and that said claim was a valid judgment in favor of D. E. Gibson, but that the sale of the land was void; and a decree was entered setting aside the sale, but declaring a lien in favor of appellee Gibson in the sum of $5,238, and ordering a sale of the lands by the commissioner of the court to raise funds to pay said debt. Plaintiffs appealed to this court.

R. G. Brown, for appellants. L. P. Berry and A. B. Shafer, for appellees.

McCULLOCH, J. (after stating the facts).

Much labor and research has been expended by counsel on both sides in presenting and discussing the effect of the laws of Tennessee and the judgments and orders of the probate court of Shelby county, in that state, where the administration upon the estate of D. E. Gibson, Sr., was had, and the settlements of the executrix and executor were made; but we do not consider those questions at all material or controlling in this case. Whatever may have been the effect of those proceedings, we think that all inquiry concerning alleged irregularities or frauds perpetrated there are concluded by the allowance in the probate court of Crittenden county in favor of appellee D. E. Gibson against the estate. That allowance was a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and all parties are bound thereby, unless fraud be shown in the procurement thereof. The fraud which would vitiate the judgment must have been not alone in the original cause of action upon which the allowance was obtained, but that practiced in the...