Court Opinion

ID: 9865627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:11:07.992081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:54.708717
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
It is earnestly argued that the effect of the opinion in this case is to sanction a collateral attack on a judgment of the court of ordinary appointing an administrator. As authority for this contention it is claimed that this court overlooked the principle applied under the facts in the cases of Smith v. Scarborough, 182 Ga. 157 (185 S. E. 105); Scarborough v. Smith, 183 Ga. 386 (188 S. E. 526); and Scarborough v. Long, 186 Ga. 412 (197 S. E. 796). We can not follow this reasoning. In those cases the Supreme Court simply held that where the proceedings to appoint an administrator by the court of ordinary showed on their face jurisdictional authority to appoint, and the appointment was made, and thereafter application by such administrator for order to sell real property was granted, and sale was had in compliance with all the statutes relative thereto, such proceedings with reference to such sale could not be collaterally attacked. Such is not the question here. Here, instead of making an attack on the judgment of the court of ordinary appointing the administrator, the action is based on that judgment. The suit here is against the surety on a statutory bond given in *418pursuance of the judgment appointing the administrator. The proceedings do not in any sense constitute an attack on the judgment of the court of ordinary. The suit is based on the failure of the administrator to comply with the judgment appointing- him administrator. It is true that it is not against him individually, but it is against his surety who stood sponsor for him as administrator to perform his duties in good faith and according to law. One of his duties was to account to the distributees under a will, if there were one. There was a will, which was duly probated before this suit was brought. When the will was probated, the judgment of the! court of ordinary appointing him as administrator was revoked, and he was then to account to the distributees under- the will (Thomas v. Morrisett, 76 Ga. 394), “except as to such portions of the estate as had been fully administered prior to its production and probate.” To make distribution as administrator to an heir at law without a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is not “to fully administer” the distribution of the estate, under the facts of this case. In fact, no distribution of the assets of an estate without a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive proof of its legality. At best, it is only prima facie proof of a correct disbursement. McKee v. McKee, 48 Ga. 332 (2); Ellis v. McWilliams, 70 Ga. App. 195 (27 S. E. 2d, 886).
An illegal distribution by an administrator, even on proper annual returns which have been allowed, serves only to shift the burden to the objector of proving that the same was not a legal distribution. Under the allegations of a petition which, as here, alleges that the distributions were made fraudulently, and with the knowledge that there was a will concerning which the administrators concealed evidence to prevent its being probated, and in which they were named executors and distributees, it does not seem that under the law they could escape liability for themselves, or their surety, by distributing the funds to themselves under the rule of descent and distribution in order that they might receive more than they would receive as distributees under the will. If there be no duty on a person named as executor under a will to use diligence in probating the will, as contended, certainly, the law would restrain him, and hold his surety liable for distributing the funds, of the estate as administrator, with the knowledge of such valid will, otherwise than as the will provides. To give the statute the con*419struction of an honest intent and purpose, wé can not conceive of a situation otherwise than that.the petition sets out a cause of action as against a general demurrer.

Judgment adhered to.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.