Case Title: Coffey v. Shrope

Citation: 180 Kan. 621, 306 P.2d 164

Docket Number: 40,358

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1957-01-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
180 Kan. 621 (1957)
306 P.2d 164
CECIL COFFEY, Special Administrator of the Estate of Maggie Birdzell, deceased, Appellant,
v.
HAZEL SHROPE, Appellee.
No. 40,358

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 12, 1957.
George W. Stanley, of Arkansas City, argued the cause, and Frank G. Theis, of Arkansas City, was with him on the briefs for the appellant.
George Templar, of Arkansas City, argued the cause, and Earle N. Wright and Ted M. Templar, both of Arkansas City, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, J.:
This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to a petition wherein all parties concede the sole question presented *622 in the court below, and on appellate review, is whether jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause is in district court or probate court.
Maggie Birdzell died testate on July 24, 1952, a resident of Cowley County, and on June 24, 1953, Hazel Shrope, her daughter, was appointed by the probate court of such county as executrix under the will of such decedent. After her appointment as executrix Hazel filed an inventory listing a bank deposit of $575 as the only asset of the estate of the deceased.
Sometime later Cecil Coffey was appointed by the probate court as special administrator of the estate of the decedent and commenced this action against Hazel Shrope, as an individual, in the district court of Cowley County to bring property, both real and personal then in her possession and control, into the assets of the estate of Maggie Birdzell.
There is no call for a detailed recital of the contents of the petition filed by the plaintiff. All that is required to insure a proper understanding of the appellate issue involved is to say that, in addition to what has been heretofore stated as well as a full and complete recital of the facts relied on for recovery, the petition alleges:
And prays:
With the petition in form as herein related defendant, Hazel Shrope, demurred thereto on grounds which, as previously indicated, challenged the jurisdiction of the district court to hear and determine the cause. Following its presentation and consideration on such basis this demurrer was sustained. Thereupon plaintiff perfected the instant appeal.
Analysis of the petition discloses this is purely an action to bring property into the involved estate. In such an action, and we may add notwithstanding contentions of appellee to the contrary, we think there can no longer be any question that under our decisions jurisdiction in such an action rests in the district court, not in the probate court.
See In re Estate of Weaver, 175 Kan. 284, 262 P.2d 818, where we held:
And in the opinion said:
..............
In an attempt to forestall the conclusion just announced appellee directs our attention to the fact this is an action where only heirs of an estate are involved, not strangers, and strenuously contends that for that reason the rule announced and adhered to in the decision last above cited has no application. Boiled down this contention *624 of appellee is that even though an executor or administrator may go out and bring property into an estate as against strangers, through the medium of an action in district court or another court of competent jurisdiction, he has no right to take that action against heirs at law who, after the death of a decedent, hold property, either real or personal, adversely to the interest of the estate of a decedent. We see no room for any such differentiation and would so hold even though this were the first case in which any such claim had been raised in this court. However that will not be necessary. The trouble from appellee's standpoint is the question has already been determined by this court contrary to her position.
See In re Estate of Slaven, 177 Kan. 185, 277 P.2d 580, where a situation similar to the one in the case at bar was involved. There we held:
Based on the foregoing decisions, to which we adhere, we have no difficulty in concluding that under the facts, conditions and circumstances of record the trial court erred in holding the probate court, not the district court, had jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action. The result is it erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition on that basis and its judgment must be reversed with directions to set aside that ruling and overrule the demurrer.
It is so ordered.
HALL, J., not participating.