Mathews v. Rountree

• Decision Date: 15 June 1905
• Citation: 51 S.E. 423,123 Ga. 327
• Parties: MATHEWS. v. ROUNTREE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

123 Ga. 327

51 S.E. 423

MATHEWS.

v.ROUNTREE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 15, 1905.

1. Widow's Support — Allowance—Caveat —Right to Pile.

Not only heirs, legatees, and creditors of an estate, but also all other persons concerned in the legal administration of the assets thereof, including a co-surety of the decedent on a bond on which suit has been brought, may interpose a caveat to an application for a year's support.

2. Appeal — Review — Interlocutory Injunction.

Until final judgment be rendered in the trial court, no interlocutory ruling which would not have finally disposed of the case if rendered in favor of the excepting party can be brought under review in this court.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 2, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 402-415.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Brooks County; R. G. Mitchell, Judge.

Application of Hannah Mathews for a year's support. S. S. Rountree filed a caveat. From the judgment the widow brings error. Affirmed.

L. W. Branch, for plaintiff in error.

J. W. Edmondson and W. H. Griffin, for defendant in error.

FISH, P. J. An application for a year's support was made to the court of ordinary of Brooks county by Mrs. Hannah Mathews. To the return of the appraisers, S. S. Rountree, in his capacity as executor of the estate of M. Brice, filed a caveat. The ordinary, upon the hearing of the issues presented by the caveat, made the return of the appraisers the judgment of the court, and the caveator thereupon entered an appeal to the superior court. When the case was called for a hearing in that court, he offered an amendment to his caveat, which was allowed over the objection of Mrs. Mathews. She then moved to dismiss the caveat on the ground that the caveator was not "an heir at law, legatee, or creditor of the estate" of her deceased husband, S. M. Mathews, and therefore had no right to object to the allowance of the year's support. The court overruled this motion to dismiss, and, at the instance of the caveator, continued the hearing of the case until there should be a final judgment in a suit upon a bond which had been signed by S. M. Mathews and M. Brice as sureties, to which suit Mrs. Mathews, as the executrix of her deceased husband, and Rountree, as executor of Brice, were parties. The present bill of exceptions was sued out by Mrs. Mathews, who complains of the rulings adverse to her, and also of the action of the court in continuing the case.

1. The interest which Rountree, as executor, had in contesting the right of Mrs. Mathews to receive the allowance set apart to her as a year's support, was that he had reason to apprehend that there might be a recovery on the bond signed by his testator as surety, in which event the estate of Mathews would also become liable because of the obligation which he had assumed as a co-surety. The caveator alleged that others who had become sureties on the bond were insolvent; that the amount claimed to be due on the bond was $8,483.41; that, in the event of a recovery on the bond, he would have to look to the estate of Mathews for contribution; and that the excessive allowance given to Mrs. Mathews for a year's support would render that estate insolvent.

It is therefore apparent that the caveator had a very vital concern in the matter of fixing the amount of money or property to be set aside as a year's support Civ. Code 1895, § 3407, provides that upon the return of the appraisers the ordinary shall publish notice, and cite "all persons concerned" to show cause why the year's support should not be granted, and, if no objections be interposed, the application shall be granted as a matter of course. After the year's support is once set apart, no one is at liberty to go behind the judgment granting it, no matter what interest he may have in defeating the same. So we are very clearly of the opinion that it was the right of the caveator, as one of the "persons concerned" in the matter of granting the...