Apel v. Kelsey, 52 Ark. 341

Apel v. Kelsey

52 Ark. 341 | Ark. | 1889

Sandels, J.

1. Judgments: Of Probate Court. The jiirisdiction of Probate Courts in the matter of sales of lands of deceased persons has often been the subject of investigation and decision by this court. It has often been held that the court is one of superior jurisdiction; that as such its judgments are proof against collateral attack ; and that all irregularities in the exercise of a jurisdiction once rightfully acquired, are cured by its final judgment. It is held that the court acquires jurisdiction of the res by the grant of administration, and that, upon the filing of a proper petition, the power to order a sale is absolute. It is in the exercise of this power that gross and palpable violations of the statute courteously called “irregularities” most frequently occur. The court being of superior jurisdiction, all presumptions are in favor of the propriety of its action, and ordinarily no relief is attainable against its judgments and orders except by appeal. But no one can appeal except he have himself made a party to the proceeding in the Probate Court. When an administrator desires to sell land, he is required to give notice by publication of his intended application. This is to enable persons interested to make themselves parties, contest the application, if they see proper, and appeal from the order, if adverse to them. Yet, it is held, that failure to give such notice is but an irregular step in the exercise of jurisdiction, and is cured by confirmation. So, it is required that publication be made of the time, place and terms of such sale when ordered; but failure to give such notice is held to be an irregularity which is cured by confirmation. Want of notice being but an irregularity, we are unable to see what additional “sanctity doth hedge about” a sale. The advantage of a ptiblic sale, when no one save the administrator knows the time when, or place where it will transpire, is not evident.

2. Administration : Private sales of lands. It is impossible upon principle to distinguish the question here presented from those so often decided heretofore; and in obedience to the settled doctrine of this court, fixing the character of the Probate Court, and the effect of its judgments, we hold that a private sale of land by an administrator, upon order of that court, is not void when confirmed.

In this particular case there were no bad results to the estate of Hall, from this method of sale. The land brought a good price, and the administrators appear, in all things, to have acted capably and in good faith. But upon the occasion of holding this manifest violation of the law lagalized by a subsequent order of confirmation, we think it proper to submit the following suggestions:

The construction put upon the constitutional and statutory powers of the Probate Court, has gone, we think, far beyond the intention of the framers of either Constitution or statute. The accretions of power, now far outweigh the original nucleus. But little further aggression is necessary to make the action of that court, in legal contemplation, infallible. This should not be. The specific powers granted these courts by law, pursued in the statutory method, are ample to accomplish the object of their being. The Probate Judges are not required to be, and usually are not, lawyers. In many instances they act without knowledge or consideration of the far-reaching effects of what they do. The most important interests, the guardianship of Widows, children and estates, are committed to their superintending care. Some possibly are dishonest, many are not wise or discriminating. Taking into account the magnitude of the property interests which they have in charge, these courts should be required to proceed in exact conformity to law, instead of being panoplied by the presumptions which attend the exercise of superior jurisdictions by other courts. When we see, day after day, the inheritance of infants squandered by the dishonesty or frittered away by the incompetency of administrators, and see these actions irrevocably legitimated by the approval of facile courts, we submit that it is time to call a halt.

The courts are now powerless. Former interpretations of the law have become rules of property, and cannot be overturned without uprooting the titles to one-fourth of the property of the State. But as to future transactions it is the power of the Legislature to place its prohibition upon the sins of omission and commission in administration, which now bankrupt the estates of the dead and send dependent widows to the workhouse.

We earnestly commend the subject to the attention of the law-making power.

Affirmed.