Reynolds v. Crook

• Decision Date: 23 June 1892
• Citation: 95 Ala. 570,11 So. 412
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. CROOK ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

11 So. 412

95 Ala. 570

REYNOLDS v. CROOK ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 23, 1892

Appeal from chancery court, Talledega county.

Motion by O. M. Reynolds, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Walker Reynolds, deceased, asking that an order theretofore made, allowing a claim of the said estate against the estate of Edward Gantt, be revived in his name as administrator. From a denial of the motion the said O. M Reynolds appeals, and asks also in the alternative, if appeal be not the appropriate remedy, for a writ of mandamus. Writ granted.

Knox & Bowie and J. M. Chilton, for appellant.

Bishop & Whitson and Watts & Son, for appellees.

COLEMAN J.

The original bill in this case was filed by John T. Heflin administrator of Edward Gantt, deceased. Among other things, the bill prayed "that the chancery court would assume jurisdiction and control of the settlement of the estate, and by appropriate orders remove the same from the probate court of Talledega county to the chancery court." At the February term, 1881, it was ordered and decreed "that this court hereby assume and take jurisdiction of the further administration of the estate of Edward Gantt, deceased, and that the jurisdiction and control of the probate court of Talledega county over the same be, and is hereby, dissolved out of said court, and is invested in this court." The decree then proceeds to make provision for a transfer of the orders and proceedings had in the probate court to the chancery court. On the 21st day of April, 1886, among other things, the chancery court made and entered a decree that the register give notice to the creditors of Edward Gantt, "requiring them to present their claims against said estate to the register of this court, and file the same with the said register, duly sworn to, as directed by law, within 120 days of the adjournment of this court, or said claims will be forever barred." In pursuance of this order, Hannah Reynolds, as administratrix of the estate of Walker Reynolds, deceased, filed and probated a claim against the estate of Edward Gantt, which amounted to $3,658.18. Various other claims were filed and probated, not involved in the question under consideration. Under a reference ordered by the court to report upon claims, that of Hannah Reynolds, administratrix, was reported by the register as a valid claim. No exceptions were filed to this claim, although there were various exceptions filed against the report of the register upon other claims. In September, 1887, it was ordered and decreed "that the register's report be, and the same is hereby, in all things confirmed." No other decree was rendered, adjudicating and declaring the validity and amount of the claims allowed and reported by the register, further than the order of confirmation which we have quoted. After filing the claim due the estate of Walker Reynolds, deceased, and before the report of the register on claims was made, Hannah Reynolds, as administratrix, etc., on the 19th of October, 1886, appeared and "moved the court to vacate the order of the court requiring the creditors to file their claims in this court." It seems that this motion was submitted for decree, but we have been unable to find any disposition of it. It is still pending and undisposed of, so far as appears from the record. At the March term, 1891, the following order was made: "Came on this the 23d day of March, 1891, the parties by their solicitors, and the death of Hannah E. Reynolds, administratrix of the estate of Walker Reynolds, deceased, one of the complainants in this cause, is suggested; and now comes O. M. Reynolds, administrator of the estate of Walker Reynolds, deceased, and administrator of the estate of Hannah E. Reynolds, administratrix, deceased, and on his motion leave is granted him to be made a party complainant as such administrator in this cause." On the 28th of September, 1891, O. M. Reynolds, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Walker Reynolds, deceased, moved the court "that the order or decree allowing the claim of the estate of said Walker Reynolds against the estate of said Edward Gantt for $3,658.18, which was made by the register on, to wit, the 30th day of December, 1886, and confirmed by this court on, to wit, the 5th day of October, 1887, be revived in his name and favor as administrator de bonis non of the estate of the said Walker Reynolds." This motion was overruled by the court. The movant appealed from the decree of the court overruling and denying the motion to revive, and, if an appeal was not the appropriate remedy, movant applied in the alternative for a writ of mandamus to compel the court to grant the motion. The record is very voluminous, but we have cited all that is necessary for a proper consideration of the question presented. In his return to a rule nisi the chancellor states (1) that Hannah Reynolds, as administratrix of Walker Reynolds, was never a party to the chancery suit; (2) O. M. Reynolds, as administrator of Walker Reynolds, is not a proper party complainant in such suit; and (3) there is no judgment or decree in favor of Hannah E. Reynolds, as administratrix of Walker Reynolds, etc. There are other causes assigned by the chancellor in his return why a peremptory mandamus should not issue, but we think it is unnecessary to consider them.

Whether the order of the court was proper or irregular, which required the creditors to file their claims, verified before the register, under the penalty of having them barred upon a failure to do so within the time specified, we need not determine. The order was made, and remains in full force, and in obedience to this order Hannah Reynolds, administratrix filed her claim. It was reported upon by the register as a valid claim, and without exception his report was confirmed by the court. In addition to this, Hannah Reynolds, as we have seen, moved the court to vacate the order which required the creditors to file their claim against the estate of Edward Gantt, deceased, and this motion, undetermined, is still pending before the court. If the motion is not withdrawn or waived, the party entitled to represent this claim has the right to have the motion adjudicated. Since these orders were made and proceedings had, Hannah Reynolds has died. It would be a denial of justice, effected through the orders of the court, to hold, at this stage of the case, that the claim due Walker Reynolds' estate should not be represented. It is no answer to say that there is no formal decree upon the confirmation of the register's report, which reported the correctness and validity of this claim. All necessary and preliminary proof has been taken, and the court, in its further...