State ex rel. Bostian v. Ridge, 39364.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Citation188 S.W.2d 941
Docket NumberNo. 39364.,39364.
PartiesSTATE OF MISSOURI, at the Relation of WILLIAM B. BOSTIAN, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of BESSIE EICHENBERG, Relator, v. HONORABLE ALBERT A. RIDGE, as Judge of Division Number 6 of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.
Decision Date02 July 1945

Julius C. Shapiro for respondent.

(1) The appeal of Charles E. Milens, claimant, was expressly authorized by statute specifically covering the subject of distribution and apportionment to or among creditors in payment of their allowed claims. Secs. 211, 283, R.S. 1939; State ex rel. Herriford v. McKee, 150 Mo. 233, 51 S.W. 421; Leahy v. Mercantile Trust Co., 296 Mo. 561, 247 S.W. 403. (2) Relator, having appeared at the hearing of the Milens claim in the probate court and having participated therein, is not entitled to the benefits of R.S. 1939, Sec. 211; consequently relator is in no position to question respondent's jurisdiction. Secs. 211, 283, R.S. 1939; Keele v. Weeks, 118 Mo. App. 262, 94 S.W. 775; McCormick v. Groh, 198 S.W. 445; In re Ford, 157 Mo. App. 141, 137 S.W. 32; Tower v. Moore, 52 Mo. 118; King v. Stotts' Estate, 254 Mo. 198, 162 S.W. 246; State ex rel. Connors v. Shelton, 238 Mo. 281, 142 S.W. 417; Leahy v. Mercantile Trust Co., 296 Mo. 561, 247 S.W. 396; Levine v. Marchisic, 270 S.W. 643. (3) The Circuit Court of Jackson County, at the time of the attempted filing of the petition and affidavit to set aside the allowance of the claim of Charles E. Milens had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the Charles E. Milens claim: as a consequence, the probate court had no jurisdiction, and the purported filing of said petition and affidavit was a nullity. Leahy v. Mercantile Trust Co., 269 Mo. 561, 247 S.W. 396; Moberly v. Powell, 229 Mo. App. 857, 86 S.W. (2d) 383; State ex rel. McGee v. Owen, 121 S.W. (2d) 765; Brill v. Meek, 20 Mo. 358; Oberkoetter v. Luebbering, 4 Mo. App. 481; State ex rel. Riefling v. Sale, 153 Mo. App. 273, 133 S.W. 119; In re Ermeling's Estate, 131 S.W. (2d) 912; State ex rel. Powers v. Rassieur, 190 S.W. 915. (4) Irrespective of the question of jurisdiction, that is to say, a filing in a "non-pending cause," the petition and affidavit of relator in any event was prematurely filed in the probate court, and hence nugatory. Sec. 211, R.S. 1939; Lucitt v. Toohey's Estate, 338 Mo. 343, 89 S.W. (2d) 662; St. Louis v. Boyee, 130 Mo. 572, 31 S.W. 594; Boyee v. Osceola Circuit Judge, 79 Mich. 154, 44 N.W. 343; McBride v. Chippewa Circuit Judge, 202 Mich. 61, 167 N.W. 934; Thorndale Mercantile Co. v. Continental Gin Co., 241 S.W. 260; Dignowity v. Court of Civil Appeals, 110 Tex. 613, 210 S.W. 505, 223 S.W. 165; Murphy v. Farmers' Bank, 11 S.W. (2d) 1066. (5) Relator as trustee in bankruptcy of Bessie Eichenberg has no interest in the estate of the deceased. (6) Respondent was vested with jurisdiction to determine whether or not the appeal from the order and judgment of the probate court refusing distribution and payment of the allowed claim of Charles E. Milens was properly before him for consideration, as judge of the circuit court. If the respondent had jurisdiction, then there is no basis for these prohibition proceedings; if in ruling on the jurisdictional question the respondent should decide adversely to the relator, then relator's proper remedy is by appeal. Martin v. Nichols, 54 Mo. App. 594; McCormick v. Groh, 198 S.W. 445; State ex rel. Connors v. Shelton, 238 Mo. 281, 142 S.W. 417; Sec. 283, R.S. 1939; Leahy v. Mercantile Trust Co., 296 Mo. 561, 247 S.W. 396; State ex rel. Johnson v. Withrow. 108 Mo. 1, 18 S.W. 41; State ex rel. Powers v. Rassicur, 190 S.W. 915; Traders Natl. Bank v. Hermer, 202 Mo. App. 402, 218 S.W. 937; Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Richards, 119 Mo. App. 18, 95 S.W. 290; Walther v. Null, 233 Mo. 104, 134 S.W. 993.

HYDE, J.

Original proceeding in prohibition. The question is whether the Circuit Court has jurisdiction to try a claimant's appeal from an order of the Probate Court overruling an application to require an administrator to pay his claim. Relator claims that this was not an appealable order because an application to set aside the allowance of the claim was pending undetermined in the Probate Court at the time. The present Judge of Division No. 6 of the Circuit Court, Honorable James W. Broaddus, has been substituted for the original respondent.

The controversy is over the ¼ share of Bessie Eichenberg (hereinafter called the bankrupt) in the estate of her brother Harry C. Milens, deceased. Another brother M.G. Milens (hereinafter called the administrator) was appointed administrator of this estate, by the Probate Court of Jackson County, in February, 1942. William B. Bostian (relator) was appointed trustee of the bankrupt's estate in August, 1942. Another brother Charles E. Milens (hereinafter called claimant) obtained an allowance of a claim of $10,450.00 against the Milens estate on December 22, 1942, at the November Term of the Probate Court. Relator and his counsel were present at this hearing and respondent claims that they had full opportunity to participate therein; and that relator is bound by the result thereof. Relator claims that the administrator and claimant acted in collusion to have the claim allowed; that he took no part in the hearing; that claimant (although an incompetent witness) was permitted by the administrator to testify to transactions with his deceased brother; and that there was a good defense to the merits; but that the administrator wanted the claim allowed and made no actual defense.

The November Term adjourned on February 5, 1943 and the administrator appealed from the allowance of the claim on February 25, 1943. (More than ten days after end of term. See Section 285. This and all other references to statutes are to R.S. 1939 and Mo. Stat. Ann.) This appeal was dismissed in the Circuit Court on November 29, 1943 because not timely taken, but in the meantime several other material proceedings were undertaken.

On April 16, 1943, relator filed a petition in the Probate Court to vacate claimant's allowance. (Within four months after allowance. See Section 211.) The petition alleged that the administrator and his attorney failed to properly defend the claim; that the claim was improperly allowed because claimant was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT