67 Mo. App. 340 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1896
The probate court granted an order for the sale of real estate of the deceased. One of the heirs appealed from the order to the circuit court, where, after a hearing, the order was renewed, and the heir brings the case here.
The objection to the order is the length of time intervening between the granting of letters and the order of sale. The facts are that the intestate died in October, 1876, leaving a widow aged thirty-two years, and four minor children aged two, four, six, and ten years, one of them being the defendant, Minnie Clark. He left some personal estate and the thirty-four acres of land in controversy, being his homestead. There was also indebtedness amounting to about $1,800. The
The objection to the order of sale is that the length of time intervening from the appointment of an administrator being nearly eighteen years, the' right to a sale has been lost by inexcusable delay. There is no statute of limitations on the period when the sale of a decedent’s lands may be had to' pay debts, and it has, therefore, been held to be a reasonable time. And what is a reasonable time depends upon the conditions and circumstances surrounding each case; that each case must, furnish its own rule. Gunby v. Brown, 86 Mo. 253. In that case, the delay in applying for a sale was twelve years. The record, the court said, failed to disclose any reason for the delay. But in the case at bar, the record shows a reason for the delay. It shows that the matter had not lapsed into mere neglect. It
It is, however, objected that it was not proper for' the circuit court to hear oral testimony as to what the opinions of the two or more probate judges who had composed the court during the period referred to, were. We think it was proper enough. The object was not to ascertain the action and doings of the probate court, which should appear by the record, but it was to throw light upon the action of the administrator and the court in the matter of delay. It was but a development in evidence of the circumstances which explained the action of the parties, and which tends directly towards a proper understanding of the ease.
We do not feel authorized to disturb the result of the trial court’s determination of the cause and hence affirm the judgment.