Court Opinion

ID: 9868424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:34:52.323343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:50.332645
License: Public Domain

Ow Petition TO REHEAR.
Petition to rehear has been filed to re-argue the proposition that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter the judgment which it did enter in the instant case. No new authorities are cited on the proposition and the argument is merely that our former judgment was erroneous. The petition is clearly insufficient under Rule 32,173 Tenn. 886!, 887. We find nothing in the petition to rehear which was not before us in the record, and fully considered by us in rendering our former opinion.
The pertinent part of the judgment of which complaint is made, and which we have affirmed, is as follows:
“It is therefore, considered and adjudged by the Court that the paper writing aforesaid, bearing date ‘January 14,1937’ and identified in the record as Exhibit ‘X’ and heretofore admitted to probate in the County Court of Madison County at the August Term, 1942, is not the last will and testament of the said Mrs. Mary Witherspoon Cole, deceased, and that the probate there*508of.in common form in the connty court as aforesaid be? and the same is here vacated, annulled and set aside.
“It is further adjudged and considered by the Court that the paper writing aforesaid, beaiing date of 'August 22, 1917,’ together with the purported codicil of May 13, Í9Í8, signed ‘Mrs. Mary Witherspoon Cole’ and identified, as Exhibit ‘Y’ are the true and whole and last will and testament of the said Mrs. Mary Witherspoon Cole, deceased. It is further ordered by the Court that the Clerk make out and certify .a copy of this entry and transmit the same with the original will identified as ‘Exhibit Y’ to the County Court of Madison County, to be there recorded as required by law.”
The jurisdiction of the county court with regard to the probate of wills is not exclusive as, or in the sense, contended by petitioner. The legislature clearly recognized an exception to the jurisdiction of the county court in that regard by providing that the exclusive jurisdiction of will contests should be in the circuit court. The real question here is, therefore, whether the order entered in the circuit court was within the scope of a will contest. Clearly it was. And when such an issue was being tried, it was within the jurisdiction of the circuit court at such trial to settle once and for all, the disposition of the “res” of the estate under consideration. Lillard v. Tolliver, 154 Tenn. 304, 285 S. W. 576, and other cases cited in our former opinion.
Clearly, from the judgment quoted above, the circuit court recognized those functions of the county court which are exclusive — the recording and custody of the documents which are found to be the last wills of decedents. We think the steps taken in the present litigation have properly and regularly followed the legislative intent as expressed in the statutes, and in former opinions *509of tMs Court construing those statutes. Upon notice of contest, the county court certified the record to the circuit court for trial of the issue devisavit vel non. On the trial of that issue, evidence was heard and it was determined that the proposed holograph was not the valid and true last will and testament of the deceased, but that a prior will of 1917 was the true will. When that issue was determined by the verdict of the jury, the circuit judge, by his judgment as above quoted, directed the clerk of the circuit court to certify back to the county court the document found to be the true last will and testament to be recorded and kept in the county court as such, and so that other necessary steps for the administration and disposition of the estate may be taken in the County Court.
Petition to rehear is denied.