Williamson v. Anthony

• Decision Date: 31 January 1871
• Citation: 47 Mo. 299
• Parties: L. E. WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. A. W. ANTHONY, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC., OF THE ESTATE OF W. P. COOKSEY, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

47 Mo. 299

L. E. WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff in Error,

v.A. W. ANTHONY, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC., OF THE ESTATE OF W. P. COOKSEY, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1871.

Error to First District Court.

Draffen & Muir, with Campbell, for plaintiff in error.

I. The plaintiff in error, Williamson, was sole administrator of Cooksey's estate, and he complied strictly with the statute in prosecuting his demand to the Probate Court. He presented it to the court at the December Term, 1864, within one year after the grant of his letters, as is shown by the records. And although the court may have omitted to appoint a competent person on the presentation of the demand to protect the interest of said estate, as is directed by the statute, still the appellant did his duty and the court did not. (See Wagn. Stat., art. IV, p. 105, § 24.)

II. If the Probate Court allowed the claim in question without first having appointed a suitable person to defend the estate, its action was erroneous. Still it was the act of the court, and the right of the appellant should not suffer by reason of the court's neglect or omission.

III. As to the claim of plaintiff in error, until some person had been appointed to defend the estate there was no person that could be sued, and when this is the case the statute of limitations will not run. (39 Mo. 292.)

A. W. Anthony, for defendant in error.

The administrator did not file his claim and other papers as required by the law. No person was appointed by the court to represent or defend the estate. The court, therefore, acquired no jurisdiction. There was a defect of parties, or rather no party defendant, and the entry of allowance of plaintiff's claim was a nullity. (26 Mo. 65.) Being a nugatory act, debarring plaintiff from no right, and placing him under no disability, the statute of limitation runs. (26 Mo. 483; 31 Mo. 95.) The statute began to run against plaintiff's claim, February 2, 1858, and nothing stopped it. (13 Mo. 159; 12 Mo. 238.)

BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff was administrator of the estate of W. P. Cooksey, and in 1865, one year after taking out letters, presented to the probate judge a claim against the estate for some $1500, founded upon a note of decedent. Without appointing a “suitable person to appear and manage the defense,” the probate judge passed upon it, in all other respects, regularly, and assigned it to the fifth class. Some four years afterward, the error in the former allowance being discovered, the matter was again brought before the court, when defendant was appointed to defend; the statute limiting the presentation of claims against estates was interposed, the claim was rejected, and the case is brought here through the intermediate courts.

The first proceeding, so far as the judgment was concerned, was clearly irregular, and perhaps void. But it does not necessarily follow that it will in no manner avail the plaintiff. It shows that he acted in good faith, that he brought his demand into court, and the vice of the judgment...