Case Name: Re Estates of GEORGE H. BETHEL et al., Deceased
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1924-05-20
Citations: 111 Or. 178
Docket Number: 
Parties: Re Estates of GEORGE H. BETHEL et al., Deceased.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Bean and McCourt, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 178–190

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeals overruled November 28, 1922,
argued March 26,
affirmed May 20, 1924.
Re Estates of GEORGE H. BETHEL et al., Deceased.
(209 Pac. 311; 226 Pac. 427.)
Courts — Order of Circuit Court When Cause Transferred from County Court was Final Judgment, Appealable to Supreme Court.
1. A final order, made in a cause or proceeding after it has been transferred under Section 939, Or. L., providing that, where proceedings are commenced in the County Court in which the county judge is a party or interested, they may be certified to the Circuit Court where actions at law shall be proceeded with as on appeal from the County to the Circuit Court, and, if the matter be in probate, then all original papers and proceedings shall be certified to the Circuit Court, is the judgment or decree of the Circuit Court, and any party may appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court.
ON THE MERITS.
Executors and Administrators — Approval of Administrator’s Accounts Held Supported by Evidence.
2. Approval of an administrator’s accounts and allowance of compensation for services held proper under the evidence; Section 1241, Or. L., not applying.
Executors and Administrators' — Cl aims not Properly Chargeable Against Estate Held Chargeable Against Distributive Shares.
3. Where claims of an administrator for money advanced by him to pay heirs’ bills for clothing, schooling "and for sickness of one of them were not properly chargeable against the estate, the court on the final hearing confirming the administrator’s reports properly directed the taking of further testimony upon that feature of the issues to determine what should be charged against each distributive share of the estate.
Executors and Administrators — Administrator not Bound to Close Estate, When to Do so Involves Its Sacrifice.
4. While an administrator should close estate as soon as practicable, the law does not contemplate that he should sacrifice the interests of estate in order to bring it to a close.
Limitation of Actions — Administrator’s Claim for Services as Manager of Farm, More Than Ten Years Prior to Appointment as Administrator, Held not Barred.
5. Administrator’s claim for services rendered on farm as manager thereof, for more than ten years prior to his appointment as administrator, held not barred by limitation.
3. Heir’s distributive share in realty as chargeable with his indebtedness to estate, see notes in 7 Ann. Cas. 563; Ann. Cas. 1916D, 1294.
5. Application of general statutes of limitation to proceedings for administration of decedents’ estates, see note in 2 Ann. Cas. 773.
From Coos: John S. Coke, Judge.
In Banc.
Mr. C. R. Wade, for the motion.
Mr. C. F. McKnight and Mr. John F. Hall, contra.

Opinion:
McCOURT, J.
On motion to dismiss appeals. Prior to June 3, 1919, separate proceedings had been commenced, and were at that date pending, in the County Court of Coos County, for the administration of the estates of George H. Bethel and Elizabeth Bethel, deceased. At and prior to the death of the former, the decedents were husband and wife. Ralph R. Pomeroy, the respondent herein, was the qualified and acting administrator of each of said estates.
On the latter date C. R. Wade, who was then, and for some time had been, acting as attorney for Pomeroy as such administrator, was elected county judge of Coos County, and on June 9, 1919, qualified and assumed the duties of his office.
Thereafter on account of the direct interest of the county judge in the administration proceedings mentioned, an order was made by the County Court transferring the same from the County Court to the Circuit Court for Coos County, and thereupon the proceedings were duly certified to the Circuit Court in and for Coos County, as authorized by Section 939, Or. L.
After the proceedings were so certified to the Circuit Court, the controversies attempted to be brought here by appeal, were heard and determined by that court. The heirs of the decedents, appellants here, filed formal objections to the final account of the administrator. The latter filed a claim against the estate for personal services and also a claim as administrator. To both of such claims the heirs objected in writing. The parties stipulated in writing that the objections to the final account and the disputes arising upon the pecuniary claims of Pomeroy against the estates might be consolidated for the purposes of a trial and be heard together.
A trial was had before the court without a jury, and upon consideration of the evidence, the court gave and entered two separate orders, one settling and approving the final account of the administrator, and the other awarding judgment in favor of Pomeroy against the estates for the greater part of his claims. An appeal was prosecuted from each order.
The respondent Pomeroy moves to dismiss both appeals upon the ground that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the same. Respondent contends that the Circuit Court, in hearing and determining the litigated matters above described, was performing the functions of a county judge, and was not exercising the jurisdiction and authority of a Circuit Court, and that therefore the right of appeal, if any, possessed by appellants, should have been prosecuted from the County Court to the Circuit Court, and not from the Circuit Court to this court.
The county judge being directly interested in the proceedings in question, the transfer of the same from the County Court to the Circuit Court was authorized by Section 939, Or. L., in the following terms:
"Any proceedings commenced in the county court, whether actions at law or proceedings in probate, in which the county judge is a party or directly interested, may be certified to the circuit court, in and for the county in which the proceedings may be pending, where the action at law shall be proceeded with as upon appeal from the county to the circuit court; if the matter be a matter in probate, then all the original papers and proceedings had shall be certified to the circuit court, and the judge of said court shall' proceed in the manner now prescribed for the county judge, had the same remained in said court; "
The transfer authorized by the statute was complete upon certification of the proceedings to the Circuit Court, pursuant to the order of the county judge, ordering and directing such transfer. Thereupon the-jurisdiction of the Circuit Court attached. The statute clearly defines the extent of that jurisdiction and the manner of its exercise.
George H. Bethel was committed to the Oregon State Hospital for the Insane in 1905, where he remained an inmate until his death. He died intestate on June 13, 1916, leaving surviving him as next of kin and heirs at law, Elizabeth Bethel, widow; Anne Bethel, daughter, age 17 years; Helen Bethel, daughter, age 15 years, and Carlton Bethel, son, age 11 years, all of whom were residing on a dairy farm in Coos County, Oregon.
It is at once apparent that the statute contemplates and provides that upon removal of the proceedings to the Circuit Court, the latter court shall be vested with full jurisdiction in respect thereto, and that the control and jurisdiction of the County Court over such proceedings shall cease and terminate. This result comports with the prevailing rule upon removal of a cause from one court to another: 15 C. J. 1150.
A final order made in a cause or proceeding after it has been transferred under the authority of that portion of Section 939, Or. L., above set forth, is the judgment or decree of the Circuit Court, and any party to such a judgment or decree may appeal therefrom to this court.
It follows that the motion to dismiss the appeals should be overruled, and it is so ordered.
Motion to Dismiss Appeals Overruled.