The herald., 1893-01-22
INVOLVING THE PROBATE LAWS,
A Supreme Court Decision on
the Estate of G. P. Haas.
Pretty Mrs. Tisehauser Sent Back to
Jail by Judge Shaw.
A Wedding Right After Divorce.
Notes on Gases in the Courts.
New Suits That Were
Filed Yesterday.

deputy supreme Oourb OleIk ASH
more received an opinion of the su-
preme court yesterday in a case in
which points in probate law are in
volved of considerable interest. The
case was that of an appeal in the matter
of the estate of Christian P. Haas, de-
ceased, and the court says:
"This is an appeal by the executor,
James F. Mooney, from an order settling
his annual account. When the execu-
tor iled his account legatee under the
will objected thereto, upon the ground
that he had large sum OF money and
also other personal property in his pos
session, which was the property of the
estate and for which he had not &C.
counted. In answer to these objections
the executor get out that he was the
duly appointed, qualified and acting
guardian of Ella V. Haas. minor; that
said property was her property and he
held it as such guardian, and had re-
turned il to the court in his inventory
and appraisement of her estate, and he
thereupon objected to the court hearing
and determining these matters, upon
the ground that as court of probate it
had no jurisdiction thereof. The court
proceeded to trial of the issues raised
by the pleadings; made findings of fact
to the effect that this property was the
property of the estate, and by the decree
charged the same to the executor in his
account.
In the present status of this case the
executor occupies q position which is
not at all pleasant to him, viewed from
pecuniary standpoint, for he is now
charged with this property in the estate
of his ward, and also in the estate of the
deceased Haas; and for that reason he
has auch an interest In the final deter
mination Of the appeal as to justify his
appearance in this court. But his two
positions of trust are in direct antsg-
onism upon the question of property
rights involved in this proceeding, and
if it were not for tho prospective per-
sonal liability against him in one or the
other of these estates he should not be
heard here at all, for in representing
both trusts he would necessarily mis-.
represent one.
The minor Ella v. Haas was not q
party to the proceedings in the trial
court and not party to the appeal,
although the decree o. that court which
is before us holds this property to be
the property of the estate. The neces-
sary effect of this decree is to declare
that che has no title therein, for the
question OF her title was the only issue
involved. The executor was not in a
position to represent the ward at the
trial of that issue for the reasons al
ready stated; and the affirmance by the
court of the judgment of the trial court
would in no degree quiet the title to this
property as between the respective
claimants.
The issues raised by the objections OF
the legatee to tho aecount, and tho an
swer of the executor to such objections
directly involved the question as to
where the legal title to this personal
property rested, and that was an issue
the probate court had no power to hear
and determine. There are many mat
ters relating to the estates of deceased
persons of which the probate court has
no jurisdiction, and the determination
of the question of title to property is
essentially one of them. When it be-
came apparent from the pleadings that
matters of title to property were at
iseue, such matters should have been
left to other courts for determination,
care being exercised thst all parties in
terested should be fairly and fully rep
resented at the trial.
We think the judgment OF the court
was one beyond its power, and for that
reason let it be reversed and the cause
remsnded."
The opinion is by Justice Garoutte,
Justices Paterson and Harrison con-
| curing.