Weyant v. Utah Savings & Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 27 March 1919
• Docket Number: 3291
• Parties: WEYANT et al. v. UTAH SAVINGS & TRUST CO.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

182 P. 189

54 Utah 181

WEYANT et al. v. UTAH SAVINGS & TRUST CO.

No. 3291

Supreme Court of Utah

March 27, 1919

Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; Wm. H Bramel, Judge.

Action by Charlotte Weyant and others against the Utah Savings &amp Trust Company. From the judgment rendered, defendant appeals.

AFFIRMED. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

James Ingebretsen and Ashby Snow, both of Salt Lake City, for appellant.

The probate proceedings and the decree rendered therein are in rem, and are conclusive against the whole world, and cannot be impeached or opened by another court, or in or by any other action, but only by appropriate application in the same proceeding, or upon appeal. Sohler v. Sohler, 135 Cal. 323, 67 P. 282, 87 Am. St. Rep. 98; Strauss v. State, 36 N.D. 594, 162 N.W. 908, L. R. A. 1917E, 909; 23 Cyc. 1411; 23 Cyc. 1408; Black on Judgments, sections 245, 246; Schouler on Wills (5th Ed.) section 1528; 18 Cyc. 642; 18 Cyc. 628; Snyder v. Murdock, 26 Utah 233, at 237, 73 P. 22; Comp. Laws 1907, Utah, sections 3779, 3780, 3955; Toland v. Earl, 129 Cal. 148, 61 P. 914, 79 Am. St. Rep. 100; Code Civ. Proc. Cal. section 1686; Williams v. Williams, 73 Cal. 99, 14 P. 394; Rosenberg v. Frank, 58 Cal. 387; State v. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 233, 81 Am. Dec. 118; Tracy v. Muir, 151 Cal. 363, 90 P. 832, 121 Am. St. Rep. 117; State v. Blake, 69 Conn. 64, 36 A. 1019; Grignon v. Astor, 2 How. 319, 11 L.Ed. 283; Wilson v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 164 F. 817, 819, 90 C. C. A. 593, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 553; Kearney v. Kearney, 72 Cal. 591, 15 P. 769; Mohr v. Manniere, 101 U.S. 417, 25 L.Ed. 1052; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U.S. 453, 11 S.Ct. 369, 34 L.Ed. 1054; Benson v. Anderson, 10 Utah 135, 37 P. 256, Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. section 919; William Hill Co. v. Lawler, 116 Cal. 359, 48 P. 323; Goad v. Montgomery, 119 Cal. 552, 51 P. 681, 63 Am. St. Rep. 145; Garr v. Davidson, 25 Utah 335, 71 P. 481; Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 374, 26 P. 206; Barrette v. Whitney, 36 Utah 574, 106 P. 522, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 368.

The probate decrees operated as a complete and final discharge of, and bar in favor of, the surety. Freeman on Judgments (3d Ed.) p. 660; Evans v. Evans (Ala. 1917) 76 So. 95; Turner et al. v. Cole, 24 Ala. 364; Smith v. Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528; Woodworth v. Woodworth, 70 Mo. 601; State, to Use, v. Anthony, 30 Mo.App. 638.

The appropriate and exclusive remedy applied in a court of equity against probate decrees, where grounds for relief exist, is to charge the property with a trust, and to hold the beneficiary as a trustee for the original owner. Silva v. Santos, 138 Cal. 536, 71 P. 703; Sohler v. Sohler, 135 Cal. 323, 67 P. 282, 87 Am. St. Rep. 98; Curtis v. Schell, 129 Cal. 208, 61 P. 951, 79 Am. St. Rep. 107; Barnesley v. Powell, 1 Vesey, Sr. 284; Kerrish v. Barnsly, 7 Brown, Par. Cas. 437; Andrews v. Powys, 2 Brown, Par. Cas. 504; Mason v. Harkins, 4 Brown, Par. Cas. 7; Stead v. Curtis, 205 F. 439, 123 C. C. A. 507; State v. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 233, 81 Am. Dec. 118; Nicholson v. Leatham, 28 Cal.App. 597, 153 P. 965, 155 P. 98; Scoville v. Brock, 79 Vt. 449, 65 A. 577, 118 Am. St. Rep. 975; Hanley v. Hanley, 114 Cal. 690, 46 P. 736; Goodrich v. Ferris (C. C.) 145 F. 844; Aldrich v. Barton, 138 Cal. 220, 71 P. 169, 94 Am. St. Rep. 43; Estate of Hudson, 63 Cal. 454; Exton v. Zule, 14 N. J. Eq. 501; Crew v. Pratt, 119 Cal. 139, 51 P. 38; William Hill Co. v. Lawler, 116 Cal. 359, 48 P. 323; Cunha v. Hughes, 122 Cal. 111, 54 P. 535, 68 Am. St. Rep. 27; Jewel v. Pierce, 120 Cal. 79, 52 P. 132; Turner v. Cole, 24 Ala. 364; Patterson v. Dickinson, 193 F. 328, 113 C. C. A. 252; Estate of Walker, 160 Cal. 547, 117 P. 510, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 89.

The administrator's bond furnished by defendant was not broken. Clinton v. Nelson, 2 Utah, 284; Evans v. Evans (Ala. 1917) 76 So. 95; State v. Anthony, 30 Mo.App. 638; Barker v. Stanford, 53 Cal. 451; Kirby v. State, 51 Md. 383; State et al. v. Cheston & Carey, 51 Md. 352; Neely v. Merritt, 72 Ky. (9Bush) 346; Perkins v. Lewis, 41 Ala. 649, 94 Am. Dec. 616; Carter v. Young, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 210; Herbert v. Herbert, 22 La. Ann. 308; People v. Petrie, 191 Ill. 497, 61 N.E. 499, 85 Am. St. Rep. 268; Bird v. Mitchell, 101 Ga. 46, 28 S.E. 674; People v. Huffman, 182 Ill. 391, 55 N.E. 981; Cluff v. Day, 55 N.Y. Super. Ct. 460; Hinds et al. v. Hinds' Ex'r, 85 Ind. 312; Sims v. Lively, 53 Ky. (14 B. Mon.) 433; Warfield v. Brand's Adm'r, 76 Ky. (13 Bush) 77, 95, quoting Lord Brougham v. Lord Wm. Poulett, 19 Beavan, 133; 11 R. C. L. 305; 18 Cyc. 1264-1268, note 26; Riggin v. Creath, 60 Ohio St. 114, 53 N.E. 1100; Young v. People, 35 Ill.App. 363; Loop v. Northup, 59 Hun. 75, 13 N.Y.S. 144; Ramsey v. Cole et al., 84 Ga. 147, 10 S.E. 598; Turner et al v. Cole, 24 Ala. 364; Hessey's Ex'r v. Hessey, 1 Ky. Law Rep. 424; Campbell v. Amer. Bonding Co., 172 Ala. 458, 55 So. 306; Leavens v. Bishop, 65 Wis. 440, 27 N.W. 324; Bamke v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 Minn. 549, 63 N.W. 1116, 52 Am. St. Rep. 618; Fisher v. Johnson, 90 Misc. 46, 152 N.Y.S. 944; Kager v. Brenneman, 47 A.D. 63, 62 N.Y.S. 339.

A judgment against an administrator is conclusive on his surety, but this must be a judgment (such as the decrees upon which we rely) rendered in the probate court or rather according to the probate procedure, and in the very proceeding in which the administrator and his surety are acting. Commonwealth v. Stub, 11 Pa. 150, 51 Am. Dec. 515; Reed v. Hume, 25 Utah 248, 70 P. 998; Beall v. New Mexico, 16 Wall. 535, 21 L.Ed. 292; Williams v. Kiernan, 25 Hun (N.Y.) 355; Greer v. McNeal (1902) 11 Okl. 526, 69 P. 893; Treweek v. Howard, 105 Cal. 434, 39 P. 20; Bellinger v. Thompson (1894) 26 Or. 320, 37 P. 714, 40 P. 229; Deobold v. Opperman, 111 N.Y. 531, 19 N.E. 94, 2 L. R. A. 644, 7 Am. St. Rep. 760; Nanz v. Oakley (1890) 120 N.E. 84, 24 N.E. 306, 9 L. R. A. 223 to 227, inclusive; Stovall v. Banks, 10 Wall. 583, 19 L.Ed. 1036; Williams v. Kiernan, 25 Hun. (N.Y.) 355; Jochumsen v. Bank, 3 Allen (Mass.) 87; State v. White, 29 N.C. 116; Wales v. Willard, 2 Mass. 120; London v. Wilmington, 88 N.C. 584; Comp. Laws 1907, section 2918; Irwin v. Backus, 25 Cal. 214, 85 Am. Dec. 125; Reed v. Hume, 25 Utah 248, 256, 70 P. 998; Salyer v. State, 5 Ind. 202; Lamkin v. Heyer, 19 Ala. 228; McClellan v. Downey, 63 Cal. 520; Baggott v. Boulger, 9 N.Y. Super. Ct. 160; Jenkins v. State, 76 Md. 255, 23 A. 608, 790; Cleaves v. Dockway, 67 Me. 118; Frye v. Crockett, 77 Me. 157; Ordinary v. Connolly, 75 N. J. Eq. 521, 72 A. 363; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. People, 159 Ill.App. 35; O'Neil's Appeal, 55 Conn. 409, 11 A. 857; Fincke v. Bundrick, 72 Kan. 182, 83 P. 403, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820; Leavens v. Bishop, 65 Wis. 440, 27 N.W. 324.

Can probate decrees be opened in equity? Stead v. Curtis, 205 F. 442, 123 C. C. A. 507; Toland v. Earl, 129 Cal. 148, 61 P. 914, 79 Am. St. Rep. 100; Pasadena v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. 788, 109 P. 620, 21 Ann. Cas. 1355; Bacon v. Bacon, 150 Cal. 477, 89 P. 317; Benson v. Anderson, 10 Utah 135, 37 P. 256; Clarke v. Perry, 5 Cal. 60, 63 Am. Dec. 82; Sanford v. Head, 5 Cal. 298; Deck v. Gerke, 12 Cal. 436, 73 Am. Dec. 558, 560; Toland v. Earl, 129 Cal. 148, 61 P. 914, 79 Am. St. Rep. 100; Goodrich v. Ferris (C. C.) 145 F. 844, 852; Hayden v. Hayden, 46 Cal. 332; Froebrich v. Lane, 45 Or. 13, 76 P. 351, 106 Am. St. Rep. 634; Dunlap v. Steere, 92 Cal. 344, 28 P. 563, 16 L. R. A. 361; Estate of Hudson, 63 Cal. 454; Lataillade v. Orena, 91 Cal. 565, 27 P. 924, 25 Am. St. Rep. 219; United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65, 25 L.Ed. 93; Bergin v. Haight, 99 Cal. 52, 33 P. 760; Ewing v. Lamphere, 147 Mich. 659, 111 N.W. 187, 118 Am. St. Rep. 563; Campbell-Kawannanakoa v. Campbell, 152 Cal. 201, 92 P. 184; Pomeroy's Eq. Jur. Section 1065; Perry on Trusts, section 620; Blake v. O'Neal, 63 W.Va. 483, 61 S.E. 410, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1148. and notes; 39 Cyc. 222; Hill v. Hill, 90 Neb. 43, 132 N.W. 738, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 198, and notes; 18 Cyc. 1261, 1262.

Were the probate decrees opened by implication? Woodworth v. Woodworth, 70 Mo. 601; Leavens v. Bishop, 65 Wis. 440, 27 N.W. 324; Smith v. Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528; Tucker v. Stewart, 147 Iowa 294, 126 N.W. 183; Evans v. Evans, 76 So. 96; Pollock v. Cox, 108 Ga. 430, 34 S.E. 213; Brandt on Suretyship, section 712; Pass v. Pass, 98 Ga. 791, 23 S.E. 752; Matter of Gall, 182 N.Y. 270, 74 N.E. 875; Code Ga. Section 3511; Turner v. Cole, 24 Ala. 364; Canfield v. Canfield, 118 F. 1, 55 C. C. A. 169; State v. Anthony, 30 Mo.App. 638; Hessey v. Hessey, 1 Ky. Law Rep. 424; In re Hudson, 63 Cal. 454; Sohler v. Sohler, 135 Cal. 323, 67 P. 282, 87 Am. St. Rep. 98; Campbell-Kawannanakoa v. Campbell, 152 Cal. 201, 92 P. 184.

Chas. H. Hart, H. Van Dam, Jr., and D. N. Straup, all of Salt Lake City, for respondents.

Probate jurisdiction of district court. Burke v. Bladine, 99 Wash. 383, 169 P. 811; Benson v. Anderson, 10 Utah 135, 37 P. 256; Fincke v. Bundrick, 72 Kan. 182, 83 P. 403, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820; Leslie v. Manufacturing Co., 102 Kan. 159, 169 P. 193, L. R. A. 1918C, 55; Douglass v. Ferris, 138 N.Y. 192, 33 N.E. 1041, 34 Am. St. Rep. 435; Gillett v. Wiley, 126 Ill. 310, 19 N.E. 287, 9 Am. St. Rep. 587; Evans v. Evans, 76 South 95; Allison v. Crummey (Okl.) 166 P. 691; Vanhorn v. Nestoss, 99 Wash. 328, 169 P. 807; Gafford v. Dickinson, 37 Kan. 287, 15 P. 175; McAdow v. Boten, 67 Kan. 136, 72 P. 529; 18 Cyc. p. 908 and notes; Sohler v. Sohler, 135 Cal. 323, 67 P. 282, 87 Am. St. Rep. 98; Aldrich v. Barton, 138 Cal. 220, 71 P. 169, 94 Am. St. Rep. 43; Comp. Laws Utah 1907, section 3779; Silva v. Santos, 138 Cal. 536, 71 P. 703; Bunting's Estate, 30 Utah 251, 84 P. 109.

Is surety a stranger to judgment against administratrix? Asher v. Stull (O...