Appellee filed the following claim or statement of account against the -estate of G. W. Frazier, in the probate court of Arkansas Coun'ty: To one-half interest in on-e gin stand............$ 80.00 To .one-half interest in one boiler............... 60.00 To one-half interest in one engine............... 45.00 To on-e-third interest in American p-umip......... 20.00 To one-third interest in one rice drill............ 21.00 To -one-third interest in one Derring binder......…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
reversed · Decided 1915-01-11
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1974
6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1(after stating the facts). (1) It is well settled that the probate court is without jurisdiction to try contested claims of title to property. In Shane v. Dickson, 111 Ark. 357, the court said: “The probate court has no jurisdiction of contests between an executor or administrator and third parties over property rights or the collection of debts due the estate. Its jurisdiction is confined to the administration of assets, which come under its control, and incidentally to compel the discovery .of .assets. ” Moss v. Sandefur, 15 Ark. 381; Fancher v. Kenner, 110 Ark. 117, 161 S. W. 166; Mobley v. Andrews, 55 Ark. 222.
¶2(2) It is also unquestionably true that the probate court has no jurisdiction to adjust partnership accounts between an executor or administrator of a decedent and a surviving partner. In Choate v. O’Neal, 57 Ark. 299, the court held, quoting syllabus: ‘ ‘ The probate court has no jurisdiction to settle partnership accounts between a decedent and his surviving partner.” See, also, Nelson & Wife v. Green, 22 Ark. 547; Tiner, Admr., v. Christian, Admrx., 27 Ark. 306; Culley & Son v. Edwards, Admr., 44 Ark. 423.
¶3The probate court was without jurisdiction to try the question of title to the property and render judgment for it or the value thereof, or to. adjust the partnership accounts and make a settlement thereof and allow the claim for any amount found to belong to the surviving partner. The testimony tended to show that the suit was for the recovery of specific articles of property, or the value thereof, or for the appellee’s share and interest in the partnership property, no settlement of 'the partnership having been shown to have been made between the partners by agreement or otherwise, nor ascertainment of such interest.
¶4It follows that the probate court was without jurisdiction of the cause, and since upon appeal the circuit court tries the case de novo and renders such judgment or makes such order as the probate court should have made, it acquired no jurisdiction on appeal. ■
¶5The court erred in not granting appellant’s motion to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. The judgment is reversed and the cause dismissed.
