Winn v. Maddox
| Decision Date | 05 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 21909,21909 |
| Citation | 263 S.W.2d 470 |
| Parties | WINN v. MADDOX et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Edwin C. Orr, William H. Becker, Columbia, for appellant.
Don C. Carter, Sturgeon, for respondents.
This appeal involves the action of the trial court in refusing to permit appellant, Howard Daugherty, a mere claimant against an estate, to intervene in a partition suit and be made a party defendant therein.
Briefly, the facts are: Luther S. Winn, a resident of Boone County, Missouri, died intestate on January 1, 1951, owning 160 acres of land situated in that county. He was a widower, and left surviving him, as his only heirs-at-law, one brother, Bert L. Winn, who inherited a one-fourth interest in said real estate; one nephew, J. P. Maddox, child of a deceased sister, who inherited a one-fourth interest in said land; several nieces and nephews, children of a deceased brother, who inherited a one-fourth interest, among them, in said real estate; and several nieces and nephews, children of a deceased sister, who took a one-fourth interest, among them, in said real estate. All of the heirs are adults.
J. P. Maddox was appointed administrator of the estate of his uncle, the said Luther S. Winn, deceased, by the Probate Court of Boone County. He took charge of said estate, which is now in the due course of administration in said Probate Court. The estate was appraised at $19,091.84, the bulk of it being the 160 acres of land, appraised at $12,000.
On September 7, 1951, eight months after the death of said Luther S. Winn, his brother, Bert L. Winn, as plaintiff therein, filed a suit in the Circuit Court of Boone County against all of the other heirs in said estate, to partition said 160 acres of land. In addition to making all of the heirs defendants, J. P. Maddox, administrator of the estate of Luther S. Winn, deceased, was also made a party defendant. Personal service was had upon all of the defendants.
On October 19, 1951, the Court entered an interlocutory decree and ordered the sheriff to sell said real estate at public auction, to the highest bidder for cash, and, since there were two claims pending in the Circuit Court against the estate of Luther S. Winn, deceased, aggregating approximately $46,000 (appellant, Howard Daugherty's claim of $27,480, and Elsie Daugherty, his wife's claim of $18,693) the court ordered that, after paying the costs of the partition suit, the remainder be paid to the administrator by the sheriff, to await the outcome of said litigation.
On November 20, 1951, the sheriff made his report showing that he had sold said land on November 14, 1951, for the sum of $16,150. The court approved the sheriff's report of sale, and ordered him to execute a deed to the purchasers and to acknowledge said deed in open court.
On December 3, 1951, the sheriff made report of final distribution, which was approved, showing that he had paid to the administrator the net proceeds of the sale, $14,861.51.
On November 2, 1951, fourteen days after the interlocutory judgment in partition had been rendered, appellant, Howard Daugherty, filed a motion to set aside the interlocutory judgment and to permit him to intervene and be made a party defendant. The court denied his request, and this appeal followed.
Although appellant has set out six assignments of error in his brief, the real issue for this court to determine is contained in the first, viz.:
'The court erred in failing and refusing to permit the appellant, Howard Daugherty, to intervene in the partition suit and be made a party therein.'
The other five assignments of error involve procedural matters, based upon appellant's assumption that he should have been made a party. Therefore, if the first is ruled against appellant, the other five become moot.
Under the statute and the rulings of our Supreme Court, Bert Winn, plaintiff, brother of the deceased, Luther S. Winn, as the owner, by inheritance, of an undivided one-fourth interest in the land involved, had the absolute right to have said real estate partitioned and sold in the Circuit Court, although the estate was in the course of administration in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Presbyterian Church of Monett v. Feist, 8523
...can affect only the final order of distribution in this case. Civil Rule 96.14; Secs. 473.260, 473.263, 473.137. See Winn v. Maddox, Mo.App., 263 S.W.2d 470; Tanner v. Tanner, 199 Mo.App. 145, 203 S.W.2d 239. The parties are in agreement that their respective titles are two-thirds and one-t......
-
Cohen v. Normand Prop. Assocs., L.P.
...‘person having an interest,’ as used in the partition statute, means joint tenants, tenants in common or coparcenary.” Winn v. Maddox, 263 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Mo.App. 1953) (citing Renard v. Butler, 325 Mo. 961, 30 S.W.2d 608, 609 (1930) ); see section 528.030. A “person having an interest” al......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Harris
...against an estate has a contingent or equitable interest in the real estate owned by a deceased at the time of his death.' Winn v. Maddox, Mo.App., 263 S.W.2d 470, 472. Subject to the time limitations and formalities prescribed by statute (V.A.M.S. § 473.360 et seq.), demands against estate......
-
Hilton v. Crouch
...and sold in the circuit court, although the estate was in the course of administration in the probate court ..." Winn v. Maddox, 263 S.W.2d 470, 471(1) (Mo.App.1953). See also Richardson v. Kuhlmyer, 250 S.W.2d 355, 361 Among the allegations of the administrator's petition were the followin......