Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-04-17
OPINION
By Belknap, J.

Ten years before his death, Samuel
Singleton, executed a writing in the form
Of deed purporting to Convey all his
real and personal property to his wife.
Afterwards he made Il will bcqueathing
his properly to his wife Tor life and upon
her death to his sister, Agnes ScOssa, the
executrix. Singleton die d in November,
1895. His wife died week later.
Upon the seltl, ment Of the tiual report
Of the Executrix,a contention arose as
to the const, uction to he given to the
deed. The Executrix claimed that she
was entitled TO the properly for the rea-
son that the writing is testamcntary in
character and revocable, ard was re-, ok. q
by the subsequent will, and that upon
the death OF Mrs. Singleton, she became
sole distribute. The heirs of the wife
Claimed under the deed.
The District Court sustained the con-
tenlion of the EXecu1rix and The heirs of
Mrs. Singleton have appealed.
This state ment of fact shows that there
is a contro, ersy in the probate court be-
tween the eXecutriX of The above named
estate and The heirs Of Mrs. Singleton
claiming adversely to the Estate OF Sam
uel Singleton.
The merits of the controversy have
been twice argued upon this appeal hut
no question made by counsel upon eth, r
side touching the jurisdiction OF the Dis
trict Court i'll a pr ohate proceeding upon
All issue of title. After the submission of
the second argument and during our in
II of hp no f
juris diction was suggested uy member
OF the court. The inquiry should he pur-
sued 10y the court of lis own motion, ii
not otherwise ElcseLfed.
1t is fl mIliar dGCtrnc Of the law that
want Of jurisdiction by The court will
render its judgments unavailable for any
purpose, and when count is satisfied
that it has not j rsdivtion, It should pro
cetd no further with the case. 1t is " ell
established that tie Jurisdiction Of pro
Late courts does net ,XleId to cuntro
versies bHw,en the state and third per
sons not claiming under such estate, ol
as clCdItors OF it.
"Qutst OF title TO such estate, lol
example, arising. not uIdcr ella M K
receive it IN the distribution of the estate
hut adv eIse!y 10 such estate, do not tal
within the jurisdiction! OF 4 pl obate tOuI
ncr CO II it Ct teImire the fights Of strang
ers to pIoFtr.y IL he course Of admins
tration'
Works on Courts and their Jurisdic
ton. al.
Since The functions OF probate court:
are omitted. III respect Of executors ant
Oh, mi t,.r.L ,,,.l 81
deNolutIcn OF p!oleIty upon the death O
its owner, il Is not their province to az
jUdIoaie upon collateral Questions. III
right CT iitlc If tie Leeodtnt to IIoIelt.
Claimed by the executor or aduinistra
tor against uild llsors, or ly thirt
persons against Inn, as well as claims @
third persons against creditors, heirs
legatoes devisets or distributes, must,
an adjudication becomes necessary, /
trio d in courts CT general jurisdiction, III,
less such jurisdiction be expressly COL
ferred on probate courts.''
l WOorEer on Admins. ISL.
In Stewart V. Lohr Wash. 81, it wa
decided that the probate court bad n
jurisdiction to try the title to real estat
as betwee the repre- Of an es
tate and the husband of the deceden
when the latter claims an interest advers
thereto. The court said: "The perso
claiming adversely to the estate was til
husband of the deceased party. and it AZ
pears that this fact was thought to atfe,
the question. We, however, do not thin
SO. For while it is true that the probat
court has jurisdiction to determine til