Mills v. Mills

• Decision Date: 05 April 1892
• Citation: 22 Or. 210,29 P. 443
• Parties: MILLS v. MILLS.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

29 P. 443

22 Or. 210

MILLS v. MILLS.

Supreme Court of Oregon

April 5, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Klamath county; L.R. WEBSTER, Judge.

Petition by Cecil J. Mills for the removal of Frederick H. Mills administrator of Warren H. Mills, deceased. From a decree for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Frank V. Drake, Reddy, Campbell T. Metson, W.H. Metson, and D.C Brownell, for appellant.

N.B Knight, for respondent.

BEAN J.

This is a proceeding for the removal of an administrator for a failure to file an inventory of the estate of his decedent. On January 22, 1890, W.H. Mills died seised and possessed of a large amount of property in Klamath county, Or., leaving as his sole heir his son Warren F. Mills, who intermarried with the petitioner herein, and died in November following, leaving his wife as his devisee. At the time of his death, W.H. Mills and one J.B. Rider owned a large amount of real estate, and were equal partners in the business of farming and raising, buying and selling, stock and by their lessee were in possession of personal property of the probable value of $4,000. On July 21, 1890, Fred H Mills was duly appointed administrator of the estate of W.H. Mills, qualified, and entered upon the discharge of his duties, but, in the inventory filed by him, failed and neglected to include any of the personal property in the possession of W.H. Mills at the time of his death. As a reason for omitting this property from the inventory, the administrator claims to have purchased it from Warren F. Mills subsequent to the death of his father, and of his appointment as administrator, and by reason of such purchase now claims to be the owner of the property, and that it does not belong to the estate, and therefore should not be included in the inventory. The contention of the petitioner is that the alleged purchase by the administrator of Warren F. Mills was not in fact made, but, if it was, the heir had no interest in the property which he could convey, pending the settlement of the estate, and that the administrator is prohibited by law (Hill's Code, § 1162) from purchasing property belonging to the estate. A vast amount of testimony has been taken, and is in the record, and learned and exhaustive briefs have been filed, as well as oral arguments made, touching the questions thus suggested; but, in the view we have taken of this matter, it is unnecessary for us to enter upon an...