Nidy v. Rice, 17299.
Decision Date | 07 December 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 17299.,17299. |
Citation | 44 S.W.2d 196 |
Parties | J.W. NIDY, APPELLANT, v. MASON S. RICE, RESPONDENT. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Buchanan County. — Hon. J.V. Gaddy, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
W.M. Morton for respondent.
Sterling P. Reynolds for appellant.
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Buchanan county, Missouri, allowing the widower of decedent, Lulu J. Rice, the sum of $700, in lieu of grain, meats and other provisions necessary for the sustenance of himself and family for twelve months following decedent's death. The widower also was allowed, on application, $400, absolute property; but this allowance is not involved in this appeal.
The facts presented by the record are simple and may be stated as follows. Mason S. Rice is the widower of Lulu J. Rice, who died October 8, 1926, in Buchanan county, Missouri, Decedent left a will dated May 15, 1915, devising certain farm lands to her husband, respondent herein, and naming him as executor of the will, without bond. The widower applied to the probate court of said county for an allowance in lien of grain, meats and other provisions necessary for the sustenance of himself and family for twelve months. The application also included an allowance request in the sum of $400, absolute property. The probate court allowed claimant $720 for his first year's support and the item of $400 absolute property. From the allowance of $720 for maintenance, the appellant herein appealed to the circuit court, where, on trial de novo, he testified he was a brother of decedent. The court required an appeal bond in the sum of $100, which was filed and approved. Defendant then filed his motion to require plaintiff to file a sufficient appeal bond which said motion was overruled. On hearing in the circuit court, testimony was taken, resulting in a judgment for defendant, as follows:
A motion for a new trial was overruled and plaintiff appealed to this court, as above stated.
Before proceeding to a discussion of the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to dispose of defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal, filed September 30, 1931, on two grounds. (1) That plaintiff has failed and refused to file a bond for appeal from the order of the probate court as required by section 285, Revised Statutes 1919 (section 288, R.S. 1929); (2) that appellant, upon the face of the record, has no such interest as an heir, devisee, legatee, creditor or other person, in the estate under consideration, as to entitle him to maintain this appeal.
Sections 288 and 290, Revised Statutes 1929, determine against defendant's contention the point raised in the first objection named in the motion to dismiss the appeal. Section 288, in part, reads:
"Every such appellant shall file in the court the bond of himself, or some other person, in a sum and with security approved by the court, conditioned that he will prosecute the appeal, and pay all debts, damages and costs that may be adjudged against him."
And section 290, provides: "... but no appeal shall be dismissed in the appellate court for failure to file affidavit or bond, or because of a defective affidavit and a bond to the satisfaction of the court in which the appeal may be pending."
The record herein discloses the appeal bond in the sum of $100 was filed and approved by the probate court.
The second point raised in the motion to dismiss must necessarily be determined by our ruling on the merits. There are six assignments of error, and these are presented under eight sub-headings in the brief. It is first urged the circuit court erred in allowing the sum of $700, or any other amount to defendant because, under the law, he was entitled to none. It is argued defendant gets no right to any allowance under section 306, Revised Statutes 1929, and that under section 324, Revised Statutes 1929, of the dower act, he gets one-half of the estate subject to the payment of the debts of deceased; that there is no provision in the act for defendant to receive any part not mentioned in section 324, and therefore he takes no other. The statutes upon which defendant relies are as follows: Section, 105, Revised Statutes 1919 (106, Revised Statutes 1929), which reads:
And section 106, Revised Statutes 1919 (107, Revised Statutes 1929), as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re McArthur's Estate
...contention. In addition to the statute and cases cited supra, see Moberly v. Powell, 229 Mo.App. 857, 865, 86 S.W.2d 383, 387; Nidy v. Rice, 44 S.W.2d 196. authorities cited and relied on by appellant are not in point. In City of Caruthersville v. Barnett, 149 Mo.App. 162, there was a motio......
-
McArthur v. McArthur
...is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Circuit Court. Laws of 1945, Section 287; State v. Jones, 202 S.W. l.c. 1123; Nidy v. Rice, 44 S.W. 2d 196; Caruthers v. Barnett, 149 Mo. App. l.c. 165. (3) Mr. John A. McArthur, personally, had no right to appear in the Probate Court nor to......
- Nidy v. Rice
-
Estate of Arndt, Matter of
...court has held that the amount and value of the decedent's estate affords no basis for the amount of the allowance. Nidy v. Rice, 226 Mo.App. 610, 44 S.W.2d 196, 198 (1931). "It matters not if such allowance exhaust the estate." Id. McDonnell v. Oxler's Estate, 235 S.W.2d 568 (Mo.App.1951) ......