Turner's Heirs v. Turner
| Decision Date | 01 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | (No. 22.) |
| Citation | 216 S.W. 44 |
| Parties | TURNER'S HEIRS v. TURNER et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Izard County; J. B. Baker, Judge.
Petition in probate court by S. H. Turner and another, administrator of the estate of T. P. Turner, deceased, for sale of land for payment of debts against the estate and expenses of administration, opposed by certain heirs of the deceased. On appeal from judgment of probate court denying the petition, circuit court entered judgment directing sale of the lands, and the heirs appeal. Affirmed.
John C. Ashley, of Calico Rock, for appellants.
Woods & Sherrill, of Calico Rock, and Elbert Godwin, of Melbourne, for appellees.
T. P. Turner died about the year 1894. He left surviving him a widow and several children by her and of former marriages. S. H. Turner and George Turner, two of his children, were appointed administrators of his estate. He was seized of 250 acres of land, and 190 acres of this were set apart to the widow as her homestead and dower. The remaining 60 acres were barren and rocky land, which separate and apart from the other lands were of little, if any, value. Turner also left some personal property.
In 1895 and 1896 claims were presented and allowed against the estate in the sum of $535.15. The personal assets were duly administered. There were certain debts owing the estate, but only the sum of $50 was collected which came into the hands of the administrators in 1918. The other debts were worthless, and the administrators took credit for them in their account current. The last account current which was approved by the probate court in 1899 showed a balance of $57.50 of doubtful notes due the estate in the hands of the administrators. Nothing was paid on the debts probated and allowed against the estate, for the reason that there were no assets in the hands of the administrators at the time to pay the same. The administrators made no effort to sell the 60 acres, which alone were subject to the debts, for the reason that, in the judgment of the administrators, separate and apart from the other tract, if put up and sold, it would not have brought enough to have paid the expenses of the sale.
In July, 1918, the widow of T. P. Turner died. No effort was made by the creditors or the administrators until the death of the widow to have the claims which had been probated against the estate paid. In September, 1918, after the death of the widow, the administrators filed a petition in the probate court, asking for a sale of all the land of the estate for the payment of the debts which had been probated against the same. Certain heirs of Turner resisted the petition, setting up the statute of limitations and laches. The probate court rendered judgment, denying the petition of the administrators, and on appeal to the circuit court the cause was tried anew, and that court entered a judgment directing that the lands be sold for the purpose of paying the debts probated against the estate and for paying costs of administration, from which judgment is this appeal.
The only question for our determination is whether or not the appellees were barred, either by limitations or laches, from having the land described in their petition sold for the payments of the debts of the estate. In Mays v. Rogers, 37 Ark. 159, we said:
"And as payment of claims can be enforced only as directed by the statute, and after the court has found, upon a settlement of the administrator, that there is money in his hands for the payment of them, and has ordered their payment in full, or pro rata, as it shall suffice, the allowance cannot be barred by the statute of limitations."
The statute applicable to the settlement of administrators and payment of claims is found...
To continue reading
Request your trial