Court Opinion

ID: 9813367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:01:32.26824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:30.851641
License: Public Domain

G-rimson, J.
(On Petition for Re-hearing.) The appellant in a petition for re-hearing asked this .court to settle and allow his final account as special administrator. The record discloses, however, that on a hearing on his final report on May 17,1948, a separation was made of the consideration of the account and of the question as to the determination of the title to the $2997.00 fund involved. More time was given to the administrator to investigate some items of the account. Briefs were to be furnished on the question of the determination of the title to the fund. An order was entered adjourning the hearing until June 1, 1948. On June 7,1948, the county judge notified the attorneys of his ruling as to the possession of the fund. On the 8th of June the county judge made findings of fact, conclusions of law and order'for judgment as to the fund only but made no reference to the account. A notice of appeal to the district court from that order restricts the appeal to the question of the turning over of that fund to the general administrator and the finding that it was part of the assets of the estate. Section 30-2608 NDRC 1943 permits the restriction of an appeal from county court to any specific direction or award contained in the decree. TJpon the hearing in district court the appellant did offer some evidence on the account. That was strenuously objected to by the respondent on the ground that it was not before the court under the notice of appeal and he offered no *78evidence bearing on that matter nor on tbe items which had been left to his further investigation at the time of the original hearing. While the court overruled the objection it apparently came to the conclusion1 that the only matter in issue on the appeal was the disposition of the fund and made its findings and conclusions accordingly.
Following that on the appeal to this court while trial de novo was asked for very little argument was made by appellant on the matter of the account and none at all by the respondent.
The appellant is entitled to a determination and settlement of his account and payment thereof out of the assets of the estate irrespective of the ownership of the fund in question. The issues involved were separable. It appears, however, that the county court did not pass upon the account and that the appeal from the county court was restricted to the transfer of the fund. Under’ the circumstances this court cannot pass upon the account and that matter must be remanded to the district and county courts for further action.
The Petition for Re-hearing is Denied.
Nuessle, C. J., Christianson, Morris and Burke, JJ., concur.