The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-07-23

ings AZ UGH administrator, and be d.
rected. after retaining his commissions
and a sum not to exceed $50. 900 to pro
Vid Tor unpaid claims against said es-
tate, TO pay over the entire balance OF
said estate Of Andrew J. Davis to the
administrator Of John A. Davis" This
prayer In too broad. and asks for relief
which his court has nc jurisdiction to
give. To ascertain the amount OF I'M
paid claims against the estate OF a de-
ceased person. and to determine when
such an estate is in a condition
for distribution. are matters with
in the Jurisdiction tf the courts
OF the state exercising probate
Jurisdiction. and concerning which this
court has no authority to interfere. In
so far as the bill seeks TO entoin the
defendant from paying over the moneys
or delivering the other property OF the
estate of A. j. Davis 10 the other de-
PENDANTS in this action. I think it can be
sustained.
As already stated no decree Affecting
the rights OF one not actually or con-
structively brought within the juris-
diction of the court can be made.
Whether under this rule any decree can
be entered which will affect the inter-
ests of the three ons of John A. Davis,
not parties to this action. or whether IL
may be held that they are represented
by the administrator of the estate OF
John a. Davis. is a question not neces-
sary to be decided now. n upon which
no opinion is expressed.
II may also be added In conclusion
that under the agreement which is the
basis OF compliments alleged cause OF
action, his right to any part of the leg
acy given to John A. Davis was entire
ly contingent upon the probate of the
will Of Andrew j. Davis, either as the
result OF litigation, or following the COM
promise of controversies relating to Its
validity. This will was probated as the
result of the compromise agreement.
The probate OF the will and the agree
ment under which the opposition to its
probate was Withdrawn were parts OF
one transaction, and constitute the sub
ject matter OF one entire contract. The
complainant here demands a judgment
to the effect hat he is entitled to re-
cover the entire property awarded to
the heirs-at-law OF John A. Davis, in
the settlement of the controversy relat
ing 10 the alleged will of Andrew j.
Davis. THAI Is to say, the complainant
seeks in this action TO ava himself of
the benefit to be derived from that part
of the compromise agreement providing
for the probate of the will, and at the
same time TO repudiate all the burdens
imposed by that agreement upon the
heirs-at-law of John A. Davis, in con-
sideration of the withdrawal of objec-
tions to the probate of the will. Whether
this demand OF complainant can be, up
on principles of equity, sustained to its
full extent is a question not presented
by the demurrers and can be more APP
propriately determined by the final de-
cree. IL Is sufficient to say that, in my
judgment, II the complainant shall sue
coed in establishing the facts alleged
by him, he will be entitled TO some re-
lief, the extent and nature OF which to
be ascertained upon the final hearing. in
view of such evidence as shall then be
before the court.
The demurrers are overruled and the
defendants allowed until next rule day
to answer.