Wilson v. Hendricks

Decision Date07 May 1940
Citation164 Or. 486,102 P.2d 714
PartiesWILSON <I>v.</I> HENDRICKS
CourtOregon Supreme Court
                  See 21 Am. Jur. 438, 816
                

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wallowa County.

R.J. GREEN, Judge.

Action by Max Wilson against D. Boone Hendricks for sum which plaintiff claims he would have earned as compensation for services as executor under a will but for the wrongful acts of the defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

REVERSED.

A.S. Cooley, of Pendleton, for appellant.

M. Keith Wilson, of Joseph, for respondent.

LUSK, J.

This action was brought to recover from the defendant the sum of $960, which the plaintiff claims he would have earned and received as compensation for services as executor under a will but for the wrongful acts of the defendant. A jury trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

In the amended complaint, plaintiff, an attorney at law, alleges that in 1928, at Joseph, Wallowa county, Oregon, he drew a will for Alice L. Hendricks by which she disposed of her property and named the plaintiff executor; that she left the will in plaintiff's possession; that Alice L. Hendricks died in August, 1938, in Glendale, California; that the defendant, a son of Alice L. Hendricks, falsely represented to the plaintiff that he had been appointed executor of a later will executed by his mother in California, and, thereafter, at the defendant's request, the plaintiff sent the will in his possession to the defendant; that the plaintiff subsequently learned that no valid will had been drawn in California and defendant had not been appointed executor of any such will, and demanded that defendant return the will which plaintiff had sent to him, but the defendant refused to comply with such demand; that "on or about the 9th day of September, 1938, proceedings were instituted in the County Court of the State of Oregon for Wallowa County, Oregon, to administer upon the Estate of Alice L. Hendricks, deceased, as an intestacy; that A.S. Cooley was appointed as the administrator of the said Estate of Alice L. Hendricks, deceased; that said Estate is now in process of administration in said County and State, and that the value of the property in Wallowa County, Oregon, belonging to the said Estate of Alice L. Hendricks, deceased, has been established as $42,960.00." It is alleged that the wrongful acts of the defendant prevented plaintiff from offering the will which he had drawn for probate in Wallowa county, Oregon, prevented his being appointed executor, and so caused him the loss of $960, the executor's compensation which otherwise he would have earned.

At the close of plaintiff's case the defendant moved for a judgment of involuntary nonsuit, which was denied. This, we think, was error.

Evidence introduced by the plaintiff tended to support the allegations of the amended complaint as to the wrongdoing of the defendant. The defendant's answer admitted the appointment of A.S. Cooley by the county court of Wallowa county as administrator of the estate of Alice L. Hendricks, deceased. In addition, the plaintiff introduced in evidence the petition of F.A. Hendricks, D.B. Hendricks and A.S. Cooley for such appointment. This petition, filed September 9, 1938, sets forth all the facts necessary to give the county court jurisdiction under §§ 11-205, 11-208 and 11-209, Oregon Code 1930. That is to say, it shows that Alice L. Hendricks died in California; that she left no husband surviving her; that she did not leave a last will or testament; that F.A. Hendricks and D.B. Hendricks are sons of the deceased and her sole lineal descendants and heirs; that the deceased left an estate in Wallowa county, Oregon, consisting of real and personal property; that F.A. Hendricks and D.B. Hendricks are nonresidents and therefore not qualified to act as administrators of said estate; that A.S. Cooley is a resident and inhabitant of Umatilla county, Oregon, a citizen of the United States, more than twenty-one years of age, and in all respects competent and qualified to act as administrator of said estate.

On the basis of the facts so averred the county court appointed A.S. Cooley administrator, as alleged in the complaint.

1. It is settled that the county courts of this state, when acting in probate matters, are courts of general jurisdiction, and, whenever their proceedings are called in question collaterally, they are entitled to all the legal presumptions pertaining to the records of courts of superior jurisdiction. One of the most recent announcements of this doctrine is to be found in Woodburn Lodge v. Wilson, 148 Or. 150, 159, 34 P. (2d) 611, where a number of the earlier decisions are cited.

2. It is a principle of equal validity that the orders and decrees of these tribunals are not subject to collateral attack except when the want of jurisdiction appears upon the face of the record: Yeaton v. Barnhart, 78 Or. 249, 257, 150 P. 742, 152 P. 1192; Smith v. Whiting, 55 Or. 393, 400, 106 P. 791; Holmes v. O. & C.R.R. Co., 7 Sawyer 380, 9 Fed. 229. The opinion in the case last cited is an able exposition of this doctrine by Judge Sawyer. The mother of a young man who had come to his death by accident filed a petition in the probate court of Multnomah county praying that letters of administration be granted to one H.W. Davis. In her petition she alleged, among other things, "that deceased was at, or immediately before his death, an inhabitant of said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Fox' Guardianship, In re
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 27, 1957
    ...appears upon the face of the record, the orders and decrees of the probate court are void. Anderson v. Clough, supra; Wilson v. Hendricks, 164 Or. 486, 102 P.2d 714; Yeaton v. Barnhart, 78 Or. 249, 150 P. 742, 152 P. 1192; Smith v. Whiting, 55 Or. 393, 106 P. 791 and Holmes v. Oregon & C. R......
  • Meyers' Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1953
    ...235 P.2d 866. In attempted contradiction of the foregoing doctrine, the appellants bring to our attention Wilson v. Hendricks, 164 Or. 486, at page 489, 102 P.2d 714, at page 715, where it is 'It is settled that the county courts of this state, when acting in probate matters, are courts of ......
  • Allen v. Hall, 96-35996
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 19, 1998
    ...not inclined to allow what amount to collateral attacks on the determinations of courts sitting in probate. See Wilson v. Hendricks, 164 Or. 486, 491, 102 P.2d 714, 716 (1940). That insistence (along with formalities for executing or revoking wills) helps to avoid fraud, mistake, and a grea......
  • Anderson v. Clough
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1951
    ...they are entitled to all the legal presumptions pertaining to the reocrds of courts of superior jurisdiction. Wilson v. Hendricks, 164 Or. 486, 489, 102 P.2d 714; Woodburn Lodge No. 102 v. Wilson, 148 Or. 150, 34 P.2d 611; 49 C.J.S., Judgments, §§ 407(b), 425(d), pp. 803, 842. In case of co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT