Stubblefield v. Stubblefield
| Decision Date | 02 December 1912 |
| Citation | 151 S.W. 994,105 Ark. 594 |
| Parties | STUBBLEFIELD v. STUBBLEFIELD |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; J. W. Meeks, Judge; reversed.
Case reversed and remanded.
Witt & Schoonover, for appellant.
T. W Campbell, for appellee.
This action originated in the Randolph County Probate Court, and involved the correctness of a final settlement made by the administratrix of a deceased guardian. E. H. Stubblefield in his lifetime was guardian of certain minors who are referred to throughout the record of this case as the "Bryan heirs." The last settlement made by him was filed August 15, 1906, and showed a balance due his wards of $ 482.71. This settlement was duly approved by the probate court, although it does not appear of what this balance consisted, but in all probability it consisted to a large extent, if not entirely, of notes taken by him for various loans of money belonging to his wards. The said E. H Stubblefield died July 17, 1909, without having made any further settlement of his guardianship, although he continued to act in that capacity, collecting old loans and making new ones, and otherwise managing the estate in his charge. Upon his death his wife filed what purported to be a final settlement of his guardianship, showing various debits and credits and a balance due of $ 213.86.
After the death of E. H. Stubblefield, letters of guardianship on the estate of said minors were granted to one J. D. Stubblefield, and he filed exceptions to the settlement of the administratrix, alleging that at the death of E. H. Stubblefield he had in his hands certain promissory notes belonging to his wards with which he was not charged in his settlement, and that, after all proper credits had been given, there still remained a balance due of $ 642.69. He also excepted to the allowance of the credits asked by the administratrix, which included certain sums of money alleged to have been paid the minors and himself as their guardian together with certain attorney's fees, taxes, and court costs and compensation in the sum of $ 50. It was contended in the exceptions that the compensation asked was excessive, and it was prayed that only such of the other credits be allowed as were covered by vouchers that might be produced.
The case reached the circuit court on appeal, where the present guardian demanded a trial of his exceptions before a jury and this demand was granted, over the objections and exceptions of the administratrix, and much of the confusion of the record in this case flows from the acquiescence in this demand. While we do not reverse this case because of the trial court's action in awarding a jury, we do take this occasion to again disapprove the practice of submitting the decision of exceptions to settlements in the probate court to the verdict of a jury. Judge EAKIN said, in the case of Crow v, Reed, 38 Ark. 482: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. Wheatley
...51 Ark. 294. The court in passing on the final settlement did not have jurisdiction to inquire into the first and second settlements. 105 Ark. 594. Mulloy and E. G. Schoonover, for appellees. 1. Appellant has failed to incorporate her exceptions to the settlements incorporated in the transc......
-
Rickel v. Peck
...this true where an appeal lies from the order allowing and settling or refusing to settle and allow such an account. Stubblefield v. Stubblefield, 105 Ark. 594, 151 S.W. 994; France v. Shockey, 92 Ark. 41, 121 S.W. Our statute (Mason St.1940 Supp. §§ 8992-137 to 8992-139) provides that an i......
- Bedford v. Bedford
-
Myers v. Wheatley
...Hudson v. Newton, 83 Ark. 223, 103 S. W. 170. Counsel for plaintiff places much reliance in the case of Stubblefield v. Stubblefield, 105 Ark. 594, 151 S. W. 994. We do not think that case has any application to the facts in the present case. There the judgment was reversed and the lower co......