The Courier. (Genoa, Nev.) 1899-1904, 1901-04-19
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
In the matter of the Estate of Samuel
Singleton. Deceased.

Appeal from the District Court of the
State Of Nevada, in and for Doug
las County. Hon. G. E. Mack,
Judge.
Torreyson & Summerfield, Attorneys
for the absent heirs of Rebecca ID.
Singleton, deceased.
M. Turner, Attorney for administrator
of Rebecca D. Singleton, deceased.
D. w. Virgin, Trenmor Coffin, Attor-
neys for Estate of Samuel Singleton,
deceased, and for Agnes Scossa, Ex-
exutrix of said Estate.
OPINION BY BELKNAP, ].
Ten years before his death, Samuel
Singleton, executed writing in the
form of deed purporting to convey
all his real and personal property to
his wife. Afterwards he made will
bequeathing his property to his wife
for life and upon her death to his sis
ter, Agnes Scossa, the executr;x.
Singleton died in November, 1898. His
wife died week later.
Upon the settlement of the final re-
port of the Executrix, a contention
arose as to the construction to be given
to the deed. The Executrix claimed
that she was entitled to the property
for the reason that the writing is tesla
mentary in character and revocable,
and was revoked by the subsequent
will, and that upon the death of Mrs.
Singleton, she became sole distributed
The heirs of the wife claimed under
the deed.
The District Court sustained the
contention of the Executrix and the
heirs of Mrs. Singleton have appealed.
This statement of fact shows that
there is controversy in the probate
court between the executrix of the
above named estate and the heirs of
Mrs. Singleton claiming adversely to
the Estate of Samuel Singleton.
The merits of the controversy have
been twice argued upon this appeal,
but no question made by counsel upon
either side touching the jurisdiction of
the District Court in a probate proceed
ing upon an issue of title After the
submission of the second argument and
during our investigation of the case,
the question of jurisdiction was sug-
gested by member of the court. The
inquiry should be pursued by the court
of it's own motion, if not otherwise
presented.
1t is a familiar doctrine of the law
that want of jurisdiction by the court
will render its judgments unavailable
for any purpose, and when a court is
satisfied that it has not jurisdiction, it
should proceed no further with the
case 1t is we'll established that the
Jurisdiction of probate courts does not
extend to controversies between the
estate and third persons not claiming
under such estate, or as creditors of it,.
Questions of title to such estate, for
example, arising, not under claim to
receive it in the distribution of the es-
tate, but adversely to such estate, do
not fall within the jurisdiction of a
probate court nor can it determine the
rights of strangers to property in the
course of administration"
Works on Courts and their Juris-
diction, p. AL.
Since the functions of probate courts
are limited, in respect of executors and
administrators, to the control of the
devolution of property upon the death
of its owner, it is not their province to
adjudicate upon collateral questions
The right or title of the decedent to
property claimed by the executor or
administrator against third persons, or
by third persons against him, as well
as claims of legatees, devisees or dis
tributes, must, if an adjudication be-
comes necessary, be tried in courts of
general jurisdiction, unless such juris-
diction be expressly conferred on pro-
bate courts.o
! Woerner on Admins. Isl.
In Stewart V. Lohr, 1 Wash. 341, it
was decided that the probate court had
no jurisdiction to try the title to real
estate as between the Representatives
of an estate and the husband of the de-
cedent, when the latter claims an in
terest adverse thereto. The court said:
''The person claiming adversely to the
estate was the husband of the deceased
party, and it appears that this fact was
thought to affect the question. We,
however, do not think so. For while
it is true that the probate court has
jurisdiction to determine the claims to
property as between those interested
in the estate, this authority only goes
to the extent of determining their rela-
tive interests as derived from the es-
tate and not an interest claimed adj
versely thereto. In the case before us
the husband, though interested in the
estate of his deceased wife, was, SO far