Court Opinion

ID: 9865127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:24:49.524497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:32.645052
License: Public Domain

*5Me. Justice Butlee
concurring.
I concur in the affirmation of the judgment, but not in the reason stated in the opinion of the court.
1. To justify the administration of an estate the deceased must have left some estate (assets) to be administered. That this is so, clearly appears from a reading of our statutes on the subject. Thus, section 5219, C. L., designates the counties wherein the administration “of all estates ’ ’ may be had. Other sections provide for the appointment of administrators “of estates,” and direct the manner in which the assets shall be administered. Both Massie and his lawyers applied for the appointment of an administrator. Massie; claiming to be the owner of the notes, had delivered them to his lawyers, who thereafter claimed to be the owners.
The petition having disclosed that there were no assets belonging to the estate, administration should have been refused by the county court.
2. Those who petitioned for administration were neither heirs nor creditors. Though Massie was the husband of the deceased, he could not have taken any of his wifé’s property “by descent, devise, inheritance, or any other manner,” because he was convicted of murdering his wife. S. L. 1923, c. 195. The petitioners would have had no interest in the estate, had there been any assets to administer. That the court, in such circumstances, should not have appointed an administrator upon their application, is clear. Stanley v. Metts, 169 Ga. 101, 149 S. E. 786; Williams v. Williams, 113 Ga. 1006, 39 S. E. 474; Shipman v. Butterfield, 47 Mich. 487, 11 N. W. 283; Breen v. Panghorn, 51 Mich. 29, 16 N. W. 188; Haug v. Primeau, 98 Mich. 91, 57 N. W. 25; Diem v. Drogmiller, 158 Mich. 380, 122 N. W. 687; Unknown Heirs of Langworthy v. Baker, 23 Ill. 484; Towner v. Griffin, 115 Ga. 965, 42 S. E. 262; Burkhalter v. Waters, 28 Ga. App. 296, 111 S. E. 73; Wiesmann v. Daniels, 114 Wis. 240, 243, 90 N. W. 162.
*63. The court says that section 5222, C. L., gave the county court "discretionary power to grant or deny administration.” But, as I understand that section, it deals solely with the appointment of administrators. It gives to certain persons a preferential right to be appointed administrator, and provides that where no such person applies, or4 in case of the relinquishment of such preferential right “to administer” the estate, administration may be granted "to such person as the county judge may think will best manage the estate.” The section does not authorize the court, in its discretion, to grant administration where the decedent has left no assets to administer; or, where the decedent owned property at the time of his death, upon application of one who has no interest therein and is not a creditor.
4. For the following reasons, however, the judgment, in my opinion, is properly affirmed.
In her verified petition for the removal of the administrator the plaintiff in error stated that Katie Massie, at the time of her death, owned and was in possession of the promissory notes in question, and that the petitioner is the mother and sole heir at law of the deceased. The court thus became aware of the fact that, if the petitioner’s sworn statements wrere true, there was property to administer, and, further, that' there was an inheritance tax due the state. S. L. 1927, c. 114. True, as claimed by the plaintiff in error (a nonresident of the state), the attorney general could sue her for the tax, without any administration of the estate. But that is not the only method provided for the collection of the tax. The statute provides that the tax shall be a lien upon the property inherited; that administrators shall be personally liable for the tax up to the value of the property received by them; that the tax is to be paid to the state treasurer-in accordance with the county court’s assessment order; and that the administrator must deduct the amount of the tax from the property. 8. L. 1927, c. 114.
Counsel for the plaintiff in error suggest that the in*7heritance tax “could not be * * * in excess of approximately eighty dollars, and would seem to justify the application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex.” It seems to me, however, that an amount of money sufficient to purchase 1,600 loaves of bread does not come within that maxim.
While the administration proceedings were pending the county treasurer filed a claim against the estate for delinquent general taxes for three years, amounting to $925.60, alleging that the taxes could not be collected unless the estate be administered in Colorado, and praying that the county court retain control of and jurisdiction over the administration of the estate.
Although administration should not have been granted upon the applications of Massie and Cline and Whitehead, when it later was made to appear that there were assets belonging to the estate, that there was a tax due upon the inheritance, and that there were delinquent general taxes upon the property, the county court should not have dismissed the administration proceedings, but should have retained jurisdiction and awaited the termination of the suit brought by the administrator against Cline and Whitehead to recover possession of the notes in controversy, which suit was pending in the district court.
The judgment of the district court is right and its affirmance proper.