Turner v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 09 April 1887
• Citation: 4 S.W. 193
• Parties: TURNER <I>v.</I> ROGERS.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 193

4 S.W. 193

TURNERv.

ROGERS.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 9, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, White county. In chancery.

The complaint alleges that in 1857 the plaintiff, T. J. Rogers, instituted suit in the White circuit court against Mary J. Watkins, formerly Mary J. Walker, and her then husband, Thomas Watkins, for a debt due from her to Rogers for $358.10, before her marriage to Watkins, and recovered judgment against them, which was appealed to the supreme court, and was there reversed, and remanded; that, pending said appeal, the said Mary J. died intestate, and Rogers amended his pleading, and renewed the suit against John G. Holland, appointed administrator ad litem for that purpose, and on the third day of November, 1869, he took a nonsuit; that on the twentieth of January, 1870, the said John G. Holland, being appointed regular administrator on the estate of the deceased, the plaintiff presented said claim to him for allowance, for the sum of $637.57, and the same was allowed and classed by the probate court; that the administrator appealed this judgment to the circuit court, and judgment was there rendered against him for the sum of $350, from which he appealed to the supreme court, and that court reversed the judgment at its November term, 1878, after finding that the plaintiff, Rogers, was entitled to $100; that, upon the return of the case to the circuit court, the parties accepted the finding of the supreme court, and allowed judgment to be rendered against said administrator for the sum of $262, on the twenty-fourth day of January, 1884, with 6 per cent. interest from that date, and costs, etc.; that on the eleventh day of March, 1870, the administrator, Holland, for want of personal assets to pay decedent's debts, filed in the probate court an inventory of the lands of the deceased, describing them, (here the complaint describes the lands and the titles;) that, at the death of said Mary J., said lands descended to Emily P. Quarles, and a minor heir by her husband, Thomas Watkins, who soon afterwards died an infant, and the lands remained in the possession of Watkins, who continued to hold them by the curtesy, and in 1867 purchased Mrs. Quarles' interest, and received her deed of them; that in 1872 said lands were sold under execution against Watkins, and were afterwards redeemed by defendant, Turner, who was a judgment creditor, who still remains the owner of and in possession of them; that Turner purchased with full notice of plaintiff's claim against the lands, and of the litigation with the deceased in her life-time, and her administrator since her death; that there is no personal property, and never was, in the hands of the administrator to pay the deceased's debts; and the lands are in the adverse possession of Turner, and cannot be sold to advantage by the probate court. Prayer that the lands be sold for payment of said debt.

The defendant demurred to the bill, which was overruled. Defendant then answered, and upon final hearing plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appealed.

J. W. House and J. M. Moore, for appellant. W. R. Goody, for appellee.

COCKRILL, C. J.

The demurrer to the bill raises the question of the jurisdiction of a court of equity to enforce the collection of a claim probated against the estate of a deceased debtor, and which is still in course of administration, out of lands belonging to the estate. The jurisdiction of courts of equity in probate matters is more restricted in this state than it was under the English rule, before the establishment of our probate system, and it is less liberal than is now exercised by many of the states. See 3 Pom. Eq. § 1154 et seq. With us the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of the administration of the estates of decedents, (article 7, § 34, Const. 1874;) and it has been frequently determined by this court that equity has no power to lift the administration out of the probate court for the purpose of proceeding with it. Reinhardt v. Gartrell, 33 Ark. 727; West v. Waddill, Id. 575; Mock v. Pleasants, 34 Ark. 63; Shegogg v. Perkins, Id. 117; Flash v. Gresham, 36 Ark. 529; Hankins v. Layne, 3 S. W. Rep. 821. The equitable jurisdiction over the...