Webster's Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 05 May 1953
• Docket Number: 158,Nos. 157,s. 157
• Citation: 117 Vt. 550,96 A.2d 816
• Parties: In re WEBSTER'S ESTATE.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 816

96 A.2d 816

117 Vt. 550

In re WEBSTER'S ESTATE.

Nos. 157, 158.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

May 5, 1953.

Guy M. Page, Burlington, James B. Campbell, Manchester, for Diana Moss bright.

Lawrence & O'Brien, Rutland, for the executor and for Children's Hospital of Columbus, Ohio.

Edmunds, Austin & Wick, Burlington, for Children's Hospital.

Before SHERBURNE, C. J., JEFFORDS, CLEARY and CUSHING, JJ., and HUGHES, Superior Judge.

JEFFORDS, Justice.

These are two separate appeals to the county court from a decree of the probate court for the district of Manchester, and come here on exceptions to judgments of the county court denying motions to dismiss. The questions raised by the exceptions were passed to this Court for determination under the provisions of V.S.1947, § 2124.

The decree was on an account filed by the Guaranty Trust Company, executor of the will of Gertrude Divine Webster. In this account credits were claimed for the payment of a certain amount of money paid by it to the Children's Hospital of Columbus, Ohio, a beneficiary under the will, and for certain articles delivered to the Vermont Historical Trust, another such beneficiary. Also credit was claimed for services as executor. Objections to the allowance of the account were filed by Diana Moss Bright, also a named beneficiary. A hearing was had and findings of fact were made. The decree disallowed the credits for delivery of assets to the above named beneficiaries. The final provision of the decree is as follows: 'The executor is ordered to file an account for the period from December 31, 1950, to date of its filing, including therein all receipts and disbursements during said period.' The original account was filed on January 30, 1951, and the decree thereon is dated February 26, 1952.

Appeals from the decree were taken by the Hospital and the executor, both of which were allowed by the probate court. The only ground of the motion to dismiss the appeal of the Hospital was in substance, that the decree was not final in that it directed the executor to file an account for a period subsequent to the one filed with respect to which the decree was made and that until such final account is filed the subject matter of the accounting of the executor has not been disposed of by any order of the probate court from which an appeal may be taken. The motion to dismiss the appeal of the executor had this same ground and an additional ground, as hereinafter noted. The motions were denied and exceptions allowed.

It is conceded by the Hospital and the executor that an order or decree of a probate court from which an appeal properly may be taken under V.S.1947, § 3090, must be a final one. Thus the only question to be decided on the motion to dismiss the appeal of the Hospital is whether the decree in question is a final decree. As we shall see, our holding on this question will also dispose of the motion to dismiss the appeal of the executor.

Both parties agree that the test of whether a decree or judgment is final as generally laid down by this Court is whether it makes a final disposition of the subject matter before the court. See Adams v. Adams, 21 Vt. 162, 165; Timothy v. Farr, 42 Vt. 43, 46.

Both parties cite many cases in support of their respective claims. It would serve no good purpose to analyze these cases. None of them have factual situations such as the one here. It is sufficient to say that the broad basis for a holding that the decree or judgment in question was final is that the decree or judgment disposed of all matters that should or could properly be settled at the time and in the proceeding then before the court. For example see Adams v. Adams, supra; In re Cary's Estate, 81 Vt. 112, 69 A. 736; Bianchi v. Martin, 94 Vt. 160, 109 A. 37; In Matter of Estate of Taylor, 110 Vt. 80, 2 A.2d 317. On the other hand, the cases in which it has been held that the decree or judgment was not final show that the holding is based, broadly speaking, on the ground that something remained to be done before the subject matter therein involved was finally disposed of and that further proceedings must be had before a final disposition. See French v. Winsor, 24 Vt. 402; Probate Court v. Chapin, 31 Vt. 373; Page v. Page's Adm'r, 91 Vt. 188, 99 A. 780; Price v. Holden, 104 Vt. 504, 162 A. 376; Beam v. Fish, 105 Vt. 96, 163 A. 591; Ricci v. Bove's Adm'r, 116 Vt. 406, 78 A.2d 13.

We turn now to the case at hand....