Case Name: Laws v. Wheeler
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1926-06-21
Citations: 171 Ark. 514
Docket Number: 
Parties: Laws v. Wheeler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 171
Pages: 514–516

Head Matter:
Laws v. Wheeler.
Opinion delivered June 21, 1926.
C. D. Poole, for appellant Laws; Osear Winn, for appellant West.
Rowell db •Alexamder, for- appellee.

Opinion:
Hart, J.,
(after stating.the facts). The Constitution of 1836 contained a- provision that courts of probate should have jurisdiction in matters relative to :the estates of deceased persons, executors,- administrators' arid guardians, as may be prescribed by law.
In construing the statutes passed in obedience-to this provision of the Constitution, it was held that the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction in administration proceedings, and that the administrator paid out legacies or distributive shares, before an order of the probate court for that purpose, at his own peril. The court said that the assets are in the custody of the law, primarily for the benefit of creditors; and that it is presumed by the law that they remain in the hands of the executor, or administrator, subject to the claims of creditors only, until ordered by the court to be paid out, or distributed to legatees or distributees. McPaxton v. Dickson, 15 Ark. 41.
Our present Constitution contains an essentially similar provision, and in construing it this court has held that it is only where the probate court has ascertained the amount in the hands of an administrator and ordered payment to a distributee that he can sue for the amount ordered to be paid. Ferguson v. Carr, 85 Ark. 246, 107 S. W. 1177; and Carpenter v. Hazel, 128 Ark. 416, 194 S. W. 325.
It is true that Daniel Nelson, while administrator of the estate of Steven Laws, Sr., deceased, left • Conway County without winding up the administration, but, under our statute, it would have been an easy matter to have made him file his account, and, after the payment of creditors, an order of distribution could have been easily obtained. The jurisdiction of the probate court of Conway County was exclusive in the administration, of the estate of Steven Laws, Sr., deceased, and that court had complete authority to settle his accounts and make an order of distribution, notwithstanding the fact that Daniel Nelson left the county.
It follows that the probate court of Jefferson County had no authority to allow a claim for a distributive share in the estate of Steven Laws, Sr., deceased,' before an order of distribution in said estate 'was made by the probate court of Conway County.
The judgment- of the circuit court will therefore be affirmed in each case.