Pye v. Higgason
| Decision Date | 08 July 1946 |
| Docket Number | 4-7946 |
| Citation | 195 S.W.2d 632,210 Ark. 347 |
| Parties | Pye v. Higgason |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Drew Circuit Court; John M. Golden, Judge.
Affirmed.
C T. Sims and DuVall L. Purkins, for appellant.
Williamson & Williamson, for appellee.
McHaney Justice. Griffin Smith, C. J., not participating. McFaddin J., disqualified and not participating.
Appellants and appellee are the collateral heirs at law of Reece Preston Pye who died intestate and without living issue in Drew county on September 8, 1941. Appellee, a niece, was appointed and qualified as administratrix of his estate on November 5, 1941. The inventory filed listed personal property of the value of $ 812.48 and real property of $ 1,000. Her first account current was filed November 27, 1942, and showed cash collected $ 261.64 and a small amount of expenditures for costs of administration and for a monument. She filed her final report and settlement on July 6, 1945, showing total collections of $ 877.34 and expenses of $ 283.70 and the balance to be distributed to appellants and appellee in proportion to their respective interests. On July 10, 1945, the probate court made an order "For the distribution of the residue of the assets belonging to the estate of Reece P. Pye, now in the hands of said administratrix," according to their interests as set out therein, "and her acts in doing so are hereby approved." This order was based on her account for final settlement. Final settlement was accordingly made pursuant to said order. Prior thereto, on June 15, 1943, appellants had filed in the probate court a "Motion for Discovery," alleging that appellee held in her possession certain bank deposits in two banks, the property of said estate, which she had failed to inventory or account for, and again on September 1, 1943, they filed in the probate court their exceptions to the account current of appellee, as administratrix, filed November 27, 1942, again claiming that the intestate left certain deposits in two banks, the property of said estate, and the proceeds of certain insurance policies of intestate's life not here involved, which deposits were alleged to have been wrongfully withheld by appellee. If either the discovery motion or the exceptions to the account current was presented to the probate court for decision, the record fails to disclose it, unless by inference they were overruled by the order of distribution of July 10, 1945.
The action from which this appeal comes was filed in the circuit court July 30, 1943. Its final purpose was to obtain judgment against appellee as for money had and received because of two bank deposits, above referred to, one in the Commercial Loan & Trust Company of $ 3,121.80, and the other in the Union Bank & Trust Company of $ 1,447.08. The complaint alleges that each account was held by the banks in the joint names of intestate and of Lillie Higgason, appellee, as a joint account with the right of survivorship in either. For instance, the account in the Commercial was held by it under a signature card as follows: It was alleged that intestate had intrusted appellee with these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Bevill
...and it declared 'a definite and conclusive relation of the parties to such deposit on the death of either * * *' Pye v. Higgason, 210 Ark. 347, 195 S.W.2d 632 (1946). The modification of Act 260 by Act 444 was preceded by the passage of Act 78. The provisions of Act 78 have an important bea......
-
Snow v. Martensen
...and it declared 'a definite and conclusive relation of the parties to such deposit on the death of either. '"' Citing Pye v. Higgason, 210 Ark. 347, 195 S.W.2d 632. We then pointed out in Bevill that Act 78 of 1965, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 67--552 (Repl.1966), 'was our first comprehensive enactment......
-
Ratliff v. Ratliff
...facts showing that the statute was complied with, in that the account was payable to either depositor or the survivor. Pye v. Higgason, 210 Ark. 347, 195 S.W.2d 632; Vincent v. Vincent, 224 Ark. 449, 274 S.W.2d 772; Tesch v. Miller, 227 Ark. 74, 296 S.W.2d 392. The facts were not fully stat......
-
Park v. McClemens
...and circumstances disclosed by the record in a case of this kind to arrive at the intent of the depositor. Although, we must admit, the Pye case, supra, is susceptible of the interpretation placed on it by appellant yet we think the weight of our decisions supports the view of appellee and ......