Stout v. Stout

Decision Date20 December 1916
Docket NumberNo. 9470.,9470.
Citation114 N.E. 473,68 Ind.App. 278
PartiesSTOUT et al. v. STOUT.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wells County; Evans Cole, Judge pro tem.

In the matter of the administration of the estate of Reuben Stout. Report of administrator, Charles W. Stout, was excepted to by Ira Stout and others. From an order, objectors appeal. Dismissed.H. B. Spencer and J. W. Moffett, both of Huntington, and Simmons & Dailey, of Bluffton, for appellants. Sturgis & Stine, of Bluffton, for appellee.

HOTTEL, J.

Reuben Stout died intestate on April 1, 1914, leaving as his only heirs at law his children, Charles W. Stout and Cerilda Williams; his grandchildren, the appellants, Ira Stout, Andrew Stout, Harry Stout, and Viola Stout, children of William C. Stout, a son of intestate, who died before his father, and two great-grandchildren, Mabel Smith and Helen Smith, daughters of Jennie Smith, who was a daughter of said William C. Stout, and who died prior to the death of said intestate. Charles W. Stout was appointed and qualified as the administrator of intestate's estate, and, on May 5, 1915, filed his final report, in which he showed that he had distributed the sum of $4,776.06, the assets of said estate on hand for distribution, as follows: To Charles W. Stout, 1/3 part, to Cerilda Williams, 1/3 part, to Ira Stout, 1/15 part, to Andrew Stout, 1/15 part, to Harry Stout, 1/15 part, to Viola Stout, 1/15 part, to Mabel Smith, 1/30 part, and to Helen Smith, 1/30 part. Said report showed that all debts and liabilities of said estate had been paid, and all the assets thereof fully administered. Prayer that said report be approved, the administrator discharged, and the estate closed. Appellants filed exceptions to this report on the ground that intestate, in his lifetime, made certain advancements and conveyances to Charles W. Stout and Cerilda Williams, that when said advancements and conveyances were made, and long prior thereto, said intestate was of unsound mind, that said advancements and conveyances are a part of the personal estate of said intestate, and should have been, but were not, accounted for by the administrator in said report. Said administrator replied to said exceptions: (1) In general denial; (2) that said intestate, in his lifetime, gave to William C. Stout, as an advancement, money and property of the value of $3,856.58, which exceeded the amount of any advancement to said Cerilda Williams or said Charles W. Stout; (3) that said William C. Stout, at the time of his death, was indebted to said intestate in the sum of $2,593.58, which has never been paid, and which should be charged against and deducted from the amount due appellants as their share of said estate. There was a trial by the court, and pursuant to a request therefor, the court made a special finding of facts and stated conclusions of law thereon. For the purposes of this opinion, it is sufficient to say that the finding of the court was, in effect, a finding that the report was in all respects correct, except as to certain advancements, which the court found the decedent had made to certain of his children, which advancements the court found should have been, but were not, taken into account in the distribution made by such administrator. Upon its finding of facts the court stated conclusions of law, which need not be set out. The record then shows the following entry, of September 28, 1915:

“The court now renders judgment in the conclusions of law upon the special findings of fact.

It is therefore considered and adjudged by the court that Charles W. Stout, administrator of the estate of Reuben Stout, shall make and file an amended report, in which Cerilda Williams shall be charged with an advancement in the sum of $3,750, and said Charles W. Stout shall be charged with an advancement in the sum of $3,500, and the said heirs of William C. Stout, namely, Ira Stout, Andrew Stout, Harry Stout, Viola Stout, Mabel Smith, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Thomas v. O'Connell's Estate, 16883.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 8, 1942
    ...has been interpreted to apply only to final judgments, or interlocutory orders from which an appeal will lie. Stout v. Stout, Adm'r, 1918, 68 Ind.App. 278, 114 N.E. 473, 131 N.E. 245. [3] The record must show a final disposition of the matter in controversy before an appeal can be taken. Kn......
  • Hughes v. Patton
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 30, 1917
    ... ... his petition are substantially the same as those indicated ... and disposed of in an opinion by this court on rehearing in ... the case of Stout v. Stout, Admr. (1918), ... 68 Ind.App. 278, 114 N.E. 473, 115 N.E. 594 ...          For the ... reasons indicated in ... ...

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