Case ID: ark_171/html/0514-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hart, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Laws v. Wheeler.
    Opinion delivered June 21, 1926.
    I.-' .'Executors, and administrators-^jurisdíction- -of'-probate ; ; cqurts. — The probate court-has exclusive jurisdiction in admin- . istration proceedings, and an administrator who- pays legacies; or distributive shares before an order of the. probate court for that 'purpose does so at his peril. , '
    •2.'' Executors and administrators — right of action' of distrib- - utee.- — It is only where the probate c’ourt 'has a'scertáinéd the • -amount in the hands - of- an administrator and ordered payment to a distributee that he can sue for the amount ordered to be paid. . , ... ... 'I
    .3., ."Executors, and administrators — jurisdiction of ..probate courts. — The probate court of the county wherein an adminis- ' trator was duly appointed has exclusive jurisdiction to administer the estate of a decedent and complete authority to settle his 'accounts- and order a - distribution of the estáte,- though the .administrator- has, left .the county, without - winding-.up the administration.
    Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; T. G. Parham, Judge.
    affirmed.
    .STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
    . -.The, same.que.st.ion or- issue of.law is. presented..for our .decision in each of. these-cases, and that is, .whether a claim for a distributive share-in an estate-may--be allowed before an order of distribution is made. In -case 9224, Steven Laws, Jr., .filed his claim with, the administrator of the estate-of Daniel Nelson, deceased, .for. allowance, . In.case: 9378, Genie We.st filed her claim with-the administrator of the estate of Daniel Nelson, deceased, for allowance. The record shows that the claim, in each case was disallowed in the probate court, and each claimant . duly, prosecuted an appeal, to the circuit court. There were separate trials and judgments in the circuit -court, but the facts are the same in each case.-
    It appears that Steven Laws Sr. died intestate in Conway -County, Arkansas, and that Daniel Nelson was duly appointed and qualified as administrator of his estate. It does not appear that Daniel Nelson ever filed an account current as administrator-of said estate, or that any order of distribution was ever made in the probate court of Conway County. Subsequently Daniel Nelson moved to Jefferson County, Arkansas,-and-no administrator in succession was appointed, by the probate court of Conway County, -nor was. there ;any settlement made by .Daniel Nelson in that court as administrator of; the estate of Steven Laws, Sr., deceased.
    In 1923 Daniel Nelson died, intestate in Jefferson County,- Arkansas. An administrator of his estate ivas duly appointed by the probate court of Jefferson County. Steven Laws, Jr., and Genie West duly filed their claims with the administrator of the estate of-Daniel-Nelsorij deceased,, and-in each instance , the-claim is based upon what the,claimant alleges would be’ due him.-as his- distributive share,of the estate of Steven Laws Sr.,.deceased:
    , The circuit .court .was of the opinion that the claims or. demands of Steven Laws, Jr., and Genie West should be dismissed- and judgment rendered" accordingly in; each case. .. Separate- appeals have been prosecuted,-to this court, and-the 'Cas.es have been consolidated for hearing.
    
      C. D. Poole, for appellant Laws; Osear Winn, for appellant West.
    
      Rowell db •Alexamder, for- appellee.
   Hart, J.,

(after stating.the facts). The Constitution of 1836 contained a- provision that courts of probate should have jurisdiction in matters relative to :the estates of deceased persons, executors,- administrators’ arid guardians, as may be prescribed by law.

In construing the statutes passed in obedience-to this provision of the Constitution, it was held that the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction in administration proceedings, and that the administrator paid out legacies or distributive shares, before an order of the probate court for that purpose, at his own peril. The court said that the assets are in the custody of the law, primarily for the benefit of creditors; and that it is presumed by the law that they remain in the hands of the executor, or administrator, subject to the claims of creditors only, until ordered by the court to be paid out, or distributed to legatees or distributees. McPaxton v. Dickson, 15 Ark. 41.

Our present Constitution contains an essentially similar provision, and in construing it this court has held that it is only where the probate court has ascertained the amount in the hands of an administrator and ordered payment to a distributee that he can sue for the amount ordered to be paid. Ferguson v. Carr, 85 Ark. 246, 107 S. W. 1177; and Carpenter v. Hazel, 128 Ark. 416, 194 S. W. 325.

It is true that Daniel Nelson, while administrator of the estate of Steven Laws, Sr., deceased, left • Conway County without winding up the administration, but, under our statute, it would have been an easy matter to have made him file his account, and, after the payment of creditors, an order of distribution could have been easily obtained. The jurisdiction of the probate court of Conway County was exclusive in the administration, of the estate of Steven Laws, Sr., deceased, and that court had complete authority to settle his accounts and make an order of distribution, notwithstanding the fact that Daniel Nelson left the county.

It follows that the probate court of Jefferson County had no authority to allow a claim for a distributive share in the estate of Steven Laws, Sr., deceased,' before an order of distribution in said estate 'was made by the probate court of Conway County.

The judgment- of the circuit court will therefore be affirmed in each case.