Case Name: Parker v. Williams
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1927-01-24
Citations: 172 Ark. 699
Docket Number: 
Parties: Parker v. Williams.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 172
Pages: 699–704

Head Matter:
Parker v. Williams.
Opinion delivered January 24, 1927.
Evans & Evans, for appellant.
Hill é Fitshugh and Kincannon & Kincaimon, for . appellee.

Opinion:
Kirby, J.,
(after stating the facts). It is .contended by appellant that the court erred in allowing the plea of res judicata to be made and in deciding that the matters in controversy had been fully" adjudicated. The-law requires executors or administrators of estates, immediately after receiving their letters, to collect and take into possession the property, goods and chattels of the testator or intestate, make a true and perfect inventory thereof, and file additional inventories of any other personal property discovered after the first inventory is made, and to make annual accounts current to the probate court showing the administration of the estate.
This executrix was cited to appear, upon the petition of the heirs of her deceased husband, and make an inventory of the estate, it being alleged that she only had a life estate in the property, and also that she be required to file her account 'showing the disposition of the property. In her response she claimed to own the-property, under the terms of the will, setting out a copy thereof, and alleged that said heirs had no interest in it, and that she was not required to make either an inventory or accounts current showing the disposition of it.
The probate court held otherwise, but, on appeal, the circuit court reversed the order of the probate court and held that she was not required to file such inventory or accounts under the law and-the terms of the will. The heirs prayed an appeal from this judgment, claimed to be erroneous, but it was never perfected.
This proceeding was begun by the citation issued by the clerk of the probate court on his own motion, and afterwards approved by order of the- court, to require the executrix to make an inventory of the property of the estate coming into her hands and file accounts current showing the administration of it. The executrix denied that she was required, under the law or the terms of the will, to make such inventory or account for the property, since all the debts against the estate had been paid by her, and since she was entitled to the'estate under the terms of the will, which made no provision requiring the filing of inventory or account, and also pleaded res judicata, alleging the question had been determined and concluded by the above mentioned judgment of-the circuit court, from which no appeal had been taken, reversing the order and judgment of the probate court requiring the filing of such inventory and account.
The plea was not sustained, and the order requiring the filing of the inventory and account was appealed from to the circuit court, where the plea of res judicata was again made and sustained on the trial. Whereupon some of the heirs of M. A. Williams, the deceased, the same persons who had instituted the first proceeding to compel the making of an inventory and filing accounts by the executrix, were made parties, upon their own application, and permitted to file a motion for new trial and appeal from the judgment of the circuit court, upon its being overruled.
It can make no difference, in legal effect, that these parties, who began the first proceeding and failed to take an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court against them, did not initiate this proceeding for the same purpose as the first was commenced, since they were, on their
own motion, made parties to it in the circuit court and permitted to appeal from the judgment adverse to their interests. They thereby adopted it as fully* and are bound as conclusively, by the .judgment of that court as though they had begun the proceeding in the first instance. Their motion for a new trial discloses that the parties to both proceedings are the'same, and they were not entitled to become parties to the suit, save to protect their rights by appealing from a judgment adverse to their interest and refusing to compel the executrix to file an inventory and account of the estate on which they claim an interest. No error was committed in sustaining .the plea of res judicata, the issue being practically the same and the parties really the same in both cases.
Davies & Davies v. Patterson, 137 Ark. 184, 208 S. W. 592; Butts v. Butts, 152 Ark. 399, 238 S. W. 600; Williams v. M. D. & G. R. Co., 133 Ark. 188, 202 S. W. 228; Brookfield v. Jonesboro Trust Company, 131 Ark. 356, 198 S. W. 697; Black v. Lenderman, 156 Ark. 476, 246 S. W. 876; Coleman v. Mitchell, ante p. 619.
It is not necessary to undertake to construe the will under which the executrix is acting, which has already been passed upon in Williams v. Williams, 167 Ark. 348, 268 S. W. 364. Nor do we determine what the rights of any of the parties may be upon termination of the estate bequeathed by its terms to the widow of the testator, the executrix herein. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.