In these cases, two separate transcripts on appeals from two separate judgments rendered by the district court for Scotts Bluff County were filed in this court, but it was stipulated that each case involved the same identical issue and that such actions should be consolidated, heard, and determined as one with but one brief filed by each of the parties.
In separate petitions filed in the district court for Scotts Bluff County on March 18, 1958, in appeals from the county court of Scotts Bluff -County, Arthur Storm and Rose V. Storm, his wife, hereinafter called plaintiffs, sought to have vacated and set aside an order rendered on May 19,. 1954, by the county court barring claims in *14 In re Estate of Millard F. Cluck, Jr., deceased. Plaintiffs therein also sought to be allowed and permitted to file exhibits A, separately so designated and attached to each petition, as claims against said estate, and to have a hearing on their petitions after due notice thereof. Thereafter, on April 4, 1958, R. LaVonne Cluck, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Millard F. Cluck, Jr., and as guardian of the estates of two named minor children, filed a general demurrer to each of plaintiffs’ petitions. On June 18, 1958, said demurrers were each sustained. Plaintiffs elected to stand upon their petitions, whereupon they were each dismissed at plaintiffs’ costs. Plaintiffs’ motions for rehearing were each thereafter overruled and they separately appealed, assigning in the consolidated brief that: “The Court erred in sustaining the Demurrers to Appellants’ Petitions.” We do not sustain the assignment.
Plaintiffs’ petitions and claims attached thereto were originally filed in the county court on September 13, 1957. Their separate petitions with claims attached, which plaintiffs filed on appeal in the district court, were identical in form and substance except that the claim of Arthur Storm was for damage to his car and for medical and hospital expenses for his wife, Rose V. Storm, whose separate claim was for her alleged permanent injuries. Such damages, as far as important here, were alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of Millard F. Cluck, Jr., when, on November 13, 1953, a car owned and driven by him and one owned by Arthur Storm but driven by his wife, Rose V. Storm, collided on a highway in Saunders County.
The general rule is that: “A general demurrer admits all allegations of fact in the pleading to which it is addressed, which are issuable, relevant, material, and well pleaded; but does not admit the pleader’s conclusions of law or fact.
“In passing on a demurrer to a petition, the court will consider an exhibit attached thereto and made a part
*15
thereof, if the allegations stated therein either aid the petition in stating a cause of action or charge facts going to avoid liability on the part of the defendant.” Babin v. County of Madison,
Plaintiffs’ separate petitions, with claims separately attached thereto, and filed in the district court, each alleged in substance as follows: That the estate of Millard F. Cluck, Jr., deceased, was indebted to plaintiffs in a specified amount as disclosed by the attached claims; that on November 13, 1953, plaintiffs were residents of Saunders County but later became residents of Douglas County; that Millard F. Cluck, Jr., a resident of Scotts Bluff County, died intestate; that on November 20, 1953, proceedings were instituted in the county court of Scotts Bluff County for the appointment of an administratrix of his estate; and that notice of the filing of said petition was duly ordered and published 3 successive weeks in the Scottsbluff Daily Star-Herald, a legal newspaper of general circulation and published daily except Monday in Scotts Bluff County. A copy of such notice was set forth verbatim in plaintiffs’ petitions. However, plaintiffs then alleged that they had no notice or knowledge of such publication and that same was not called to their attention by mail or otherwise.
Plaintiffs then alleged that R. LaVonne Cluck, the widow of Millard F. Cluck, Jr., deceased, was duly appointed administratrix of his estate; and that she at all times knew the circumstances of her husband’s death in the accident of November 13, 1953, and the probable claim of plaintiffs for damages. Plaintiffs also alleged that on December 16, 1953, an order in said estate for notice to creditors was duly rendered by the county court and that said notice was duly published for 3 successive weeks in the legal Scotts Bluff newspaper aforesaid. A copy of said notice, which provided: “Notice is hereby given that all claims against said estate must be filed on or before the 12th day of April, 1954, or be forever barred, and that a hearing on claims will be *16 held in this Court on April 13th, 1954, at ten o’clock A. M.” was' set forth verbatim in plaintiffs’ petitions. However, in like manner as heretofore set forth, plaintiffs alleged that they had no notice or knowledge of such publication.
Plaintiffs also each alleged that on May 19,' 1954, the county court rendered a judgment in said estate barring claims.' A copy of said judgment was then set forth verbatim. As far as important here, it provided:- “IT IS THEREFORE. CONSIDERED ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the court that all claims not heretofore filed herein against the estate be, and they hereby are, forever barred.” However, in like manner as heretofore set forth, plaintiffs alleged that they had no notice or knowledge of such judgment.
Plaintiff's then alleged that unless said judgment barring claims was vacated and set aside and plaintiffs were permitted to file their claims against the estate, they would be deprived of valuable property rights without notice, knowledge, or an opportunity to be heard. Their prayer was to have such judgment vacated and set aside, for permission to file their claims, and for hearing thereon after due notice was given.
At the outset it should be noted that Millard F. Cluck, Jr., was admittedly instantly killed in Saunders County on November 13, 1953, in the presence of plaintiffs and in the same accident as here involved. Plaintiffs and their counsel must have then known or could have timely learned by the exercise of any diligence that decedent was a resident of Scotts Bluff County and that his estate was being administered in that county. As a matter of fact, as hereinafter noted, plaintiffs and their counsel did soon learn of that fact, but by their own neglect, fault, and want of due diligence they took no timely steps to protect and preserve their rights.
In that connection, it has now become elementary that: “Where cases are interwoven and interdependent and the controversy involved has already been considered
*17
and detérmined by the court in former proceedings involving one of the parties now before it, the court has the right ánd should examine its own records and take judicial notice of its own proceedings and judgments in the former action. Such cases are exceptions to the general rule warranted from the necessity of giving effect to former holdings which finally decide questions of fact and law.” Cover v. Platte Valley Public Power & Irr. Dist.,
In that connection, our records, opinion, and judgment in Storm v. Malchow,
In so holding, we relied on Rehn v. Bingaman,
“The word ‘claim’ includes every species of liability which an executor or an administrator of an estate can be called upon to pay, or provide for payment, out of the general fund of the estate.”
Such rules must have been well known by counsel for plaintiffs, or could have been discovered by the exercise of any diligence. It will also be noted that such original actions aforesaid were filed almost 10 months after administration proceedings had begun on November 20, 1953, but less than 4 months after May 19, 1954, the date of the judgment barring all claims, and less than 1 month after plaintiffs could, for good cause shown, have applied for an extension of time to file their claims, which they did not do, although by the exercise of any diligence they did or could have timely known about the proceedings in the estate of Millard F. Cluck, Jr., deceased, long before their original actions were filed.
Further, Storm v. Malchow,
On the other hand, in any event this state has clear and unambiguous applicable and controlling in rem pro *19 cedural and substantive statutes which bar plaintiffs’ claims. Such statutes have been so construed and applied both by ancient and recent decisions of this court which have long since become customary, commonplace, elementary, and well-known to courts and lawyers throughout this state. Section 30-601, R. R. S. 1943, provides in part that: “When letters * * * of administration * * * shall be granted by any court of probate * * * it shall be the duty of the judge of the court to receive, examine, adjust and allow all lawful claims and demands of all persons against the deceased; Provided, the judge shall within forty days after the issuance of such letters * * * of administration, give notice of the date of the hearing of claims against the deceased and the limit of time for the presentation of claims by creditors, which notice shall be given by posting in four public places in the county, or by publication in a legal newspaper of the county three successive weeks, or in any manner which the court may direct.” Admittedly, such section was complied with in every respect.
Section 30-603, R. R. S. 1943, provides that: “The court shall allow such time as the circumstances of the case shall require for the creditors to present their claims for examination and allowance, which time shall not in the first instance exceed eighteen months nor be less than three months; and the time allowed shall be stated in the order.” Admittedly, that section was complied with in every respect.
In that connection, section 30-604, R. R. S. 1943, provides: “The court may extend the time allowed to creditors to present their claims, as the circumstances of the case may require; but not so that the whole time shall exceed two years.” Also, section 30-605, R. R. S. 1943, provides: “Any creditor who has failed to present his claim within the time allowed, may, within three months after the expiration of such time, apply to the court for additional time for the filing and determination of his claim, and the court may, for good cause *20 shown, allow such further time not exceeding three months, but notice of the time and place for the hearing on claims .thus filed within the additional time shall be given to all parties interested as prescribed in section 30-601.” Further, section 30-609, R. R. S. 1943, provides in part that: “Every person having a claim ordémand ágains't the estate of a deceased person who shall not after the giving of notice as required in section 30-601 exhibit his claim or demand to the judge within the time limited by the court for that purpose, shall be forever barred from recovering on such claim or demand, or setting off the same in any action whatever.”
In this case, claims of creditors, as admitted by plaintiffs, were timely required and noticed to be filed on or before April 12, 1954, and judgment barring claims was rendered May 19, 1954. However, plaintiffs, for want of any diligence, never made any timely application for an extension of time to file their claims and never made any attempt to file them in the estate until September 13, 1957, more than 3 years after April 12, 1954, when they were required to file them, and more than 3 years after May 19, 1954, when the judgment was rendered barring all claims. In other words, plaintiffs, by their own fault or neglect and for want of due diligence, failed to comply with either or all of sections 30-604, 30-605, and 30-609, R. R. S. 1943.
In In re Estate of Yetter,
As early as Estate of Fitzgerald v. First Nat. Bank of Chariton,
In In re Estate of Golden,
“The statute of nonclaim is generally more rigorously applied than the general statute of limitations.
“The jurisdiction of the county court to permit the filing of a belated claim against the estate of a deceased person depends upon good cause, shown, and in the absence thereof there is no judicial discretion for the granting of such permission.”
■ In that connection, it would be novel indeed if it were argued that a possible defendant in a tort action is required, in the absence of statute, to notify a pos *22 sible plaintiff in the action that in 4 years his claim will be barred by the statute of limitations governing tort claims. Obviously, due process of law does not require notice in such a case. By analogy, notice is no more required in connection with the running of a statute of nonclaim, which an administrator cannot waive as a defense, than it is for a general statute of limitations which may generally be waived or used as a defense.
As recently as Supp v. Allard,
“ ‘Good cause,’ as employed in our statute of nonclaim, is not definitely defined therein, and the proper interpretation and application thereof must depend upon the circumstances of each case.
“The jurisdiction of the county court to permit the filing of a belated claim against the estate of a deceased person depends upon good cause shown, and in the absence thereof there is no judicial discretion for the granting of such permission.
“A claimant against the estate of a deceased person is not entitled to have time extended beyond that duly fixed by the county court so that he might present his claim, where such claimant has been guilty of inexcusable inattention, neglect, or lack of diligence.”
No authority in point has been cited or discussed by plaintiffs which could support any conclusion except that the judgments of the trial court should each be and hereby are affirmed. All costs in each case are separately taxed to each respective plaintiff, who is an appellant herein.
Affirmed.