Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

118 Ark. 335

Burrus v. Butt

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 3, 1915

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1915-05-03

J. Driver, Judge; STATEMENT BV THE COURT. S. E. Martin filed her petition in the probate court of Mississippi County, alleging that James W. Martin, prior to 1894, was seized of an estate of inheritance in certain tracts of land in Mississippi County; that in the year 1894 and previous thereto he had executed deeds conveying said lands to the defendants; that plaintiff was the wife of James W. Martin at that time, and that she did not sign or acknowledge any of these deeds;…

Relies on Hilliard v. Hilliard

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

affirmed · Decided 1915-05-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1981

3 state decisions

1019151920193019401950196019701980decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Wood, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts). At the time of the death of Mrs. Martin, the circuit court had not entered any final order making 'the allotment of her dower. The court had 'appointed the commissioners to allot the dower and had designated the manner in which the same should be set apart to Mrs. Martin, and had directed them to ascertain the value of the improvements upon the land, and the vailue of the land and improvements combined, and the lannual rental value of the land, and to report to the next term of the court. Before the appeal was perfected from this order, Mrs. Martin died, the cause was revived in the name of her administrator, and he moved the circuit court for judgment for rents.

¶2The circuit court had jurisdiction of the proceedings on appeal from the probate court. It had only such jurisdiction as the probate court had. See Hilliard Ex parte, and Hilliard v. Hilliard, 50 Ark. 34.

¶3The right of Mrs. Martin to have dower assigned ¡albated at her death. The suit for rents and profits of the lands, which had been designated and set /apart by the order of the court as her dower, could not be instituted in the probate court, and the ruling of the court was correct in abating and dismissing the action after the death of Mrs. Martin. Whatever rights appellant, as the administrator of Mrs. Martin, may have had to the rents and profits, if any, would have to be asserted by original action in another forum.

¶4The judgment is therefore affirmed.

/118/ark/335 · .json · Public domain