{ "id": 1453361, "name": "Burns v. Wegman", "name_abbreviation": "Burns v. Wegman", "decision_date": "1940-03-25", "docket_number": "4-5856", "first_page": "225", "last_page": "228", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "200 Ark. 225" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "138 S.W.2d 389" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "3 A. 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 Vt. 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "case_ids": [ 762088 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/vt/58/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 N. W. 280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Wis. 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8693660 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/183/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 A. 390", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N, J. L. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.L.", "case_ids": [ 156374 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/njl/120/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 Miss. 45", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 1878936 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/miss/183/0045-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 N. W. 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "152 Minn. 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 106868 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/152/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 N. W. 286", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 Minn. 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 567166 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/46/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 N. W. 315", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 la. 1181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2242982 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/181/1181-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 L. R. A., N. S., 1152", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 Pac. 922", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 Cal. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2092853 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/168/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Pac. 783", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 Cal. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2076549 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/123/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 A. L. R. 71", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 Ariz. 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 5110082 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/52/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Ala. App. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala. App.", "case_ids": [ 8820707 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala-app/7/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 S. W. 705", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 Ark. 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1373984 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/169/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ark. 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726801 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/17/0567-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 431, "char_count": 5940, "ocr_confidence": 0.521, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.943004060014475e-08, "percentile": 0.4623084202978629 }, "sha256": "a5b340ee5f14855a3861e51060aab16afe5789457004f589342cbb846d9e5ef5", "simhash": "1:716dc0190448160b", "word_count": 1006 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:40.186957+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Burns v. Wegman." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Griffin Smith, C. J.\nGeorge W. Dodd is administrator of the estate of C. J. Wegman. Wegman\u2019s widow is appellee. Letters of administration with the will annexed were granted February 12, 1938, Wegman\u2019s death having occurred during the preceding month. Appellants are creditors.\nDecember 18, 1938, appellee filed with the administrator a claim for $39, representing the amount she had paid for medical services rendered 'C. J. Wegman. Another claim by appellee was for $316.85, covering funeral expenses. She had paid both items soon after the death of her husband. These sums were allowed by the administrator without classification. Exceptions were filed to his first settlement. The court reduced by $116.85 the bill for funeral expenses, allowing $200. The claim for $39 was allowed. The appeal is from the order allowing the two items as claims of the first class, presentation to the administrator having been made more than six months after letters had been granted.\nAppellants insist the demands must be treated as fourth class.\nThe applicable statute provides that demands against the estate of a deceased person shall be divided into four classes. In the first class are \u201cfuneral expenses, expenses of the last sickness, wages of servants, and demands for medicines, medical and surgical attention, nursing and hospitalization during the last illness.\u201d\nThe fourth class includes \u201call such demands as may be exhibited as aforesaid after six months and within one year after the first letters granted on the estate J ?\nEstates of deceased persons are chargeable with the necessary expenses\u2018of burial. In Bomford v. Grimes, 17 Ark. 567, this paragraph appears:\n\u201cIt is manifest that our statute of administration provides for the allowance and classification of no claims or demands against the estate of a deceased person, (other than for funeral expenses) but such as arise upon contracts or liabilities made or incurred by him, in some way, during his lifetime.\u201d\nThe statute referred to was \u00a7 85 of English\u2019s Digest of 1848. The amendment now appearing as \u00a7 97 of Pope\u2019s Digest is act 211 of 1931. The present law, and the statute in effect when the Grimes Case was written, are similar in respect of the statement in the quoted paragraph.\nAppellee also relies upon Security Bank & Trust Company v. Costen, 169 Ark. 173, 273 S. W. 705. In that case Greathouse died in March, 1923. The widow immediately paid funeral expenses. Mrs. Greathouse died seven months later. The bank was appointed administrator of the estate of the deceased widow and filed claim against Costen, administrator of the estate of W. C. Greathouse. The bank sought reimbursement for the money paid by the widow for funeral expenses of her dead husband. In the opinion it was said:\n\u201cIf the person who pays the expense or advances the money [to pay funeral charges] is not a mere volunteer who acts officiously and without interest in the estate of the decedent, the charge against the estate inures to his or her benefit. . . . The payment was in settlement of the claim of the undertaker, which would have been a legal claim against the estate, and the act of the widow in making the payment was not a discharge of the obligation of -the estate, but was a mere transfer of the obligation by way of subrogation to the widow.\u201d\nThe question presented by the instant appeal was not in the Bank-Costen Case. In the latter case letters of administration were issued to Costen October 15, 1923.\nAppellees argue what they term the obvious difference between funeral expenses and debts and liabilities incurred by the deceased during his lifetime. They insist that the statute does not \u201cin terms\u201d require that claims ..for funeral expenses, or those occasioned by the last illness, be exhibited to the administrator in order to preserve the priority given by law; that funeral expenses are contracts subsequent to death, and \u201c. . . the administrator and everyone else knows that such indebtedness must be incurred, and notice thereof is unnecessary.\u201d In support of this construction cases in foreign jurisdictions are cited.\nThe argument must be rejected because it ignores the statutory rationale. By express language funeral expenses are made a first charge against a decedent\u2019s estate; but by lapse of time the preference may be lost. The legislative authority thought proper to create a fourth classification and to direct that all demands exhibited \u201c. . . as aforesaid after six .months and within one year after the first letters granted on the estate . . .\u201d should comprise that group.\nAppellee had a right to pay the expenses and to claim reimbursement as a creditor of the first class. She was not a mere volunteer, and did not act \u201cofficiously and without interest in the estate. \u2019 \u2019 But she could not wait more than six months and then receive the benefits of priority.\nThe judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions that the claims be classified as fourth class.\nPope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 97. See, also, \u00a7 116.\nAlthough the opinion does not show when Costen was appointed administrator, the fact appears in the record in an agreed statement.\nRoche Undertaking Co. v. DeBardeleben, 7 Ala. App. 232, 60 So. 1000; Lowrey v. Crandall, 52 Ariz. 501, 83 Pac. 2d 1003, 120 A. L. R. 71; Potter v. Lewin, 123 Cal. 146, 55 Pac. 783; Golden Gate Undertaking Co. v. Taylor, 168 Cal. 94, 141 Pac. 922, 52 L. R. A., N. S., 1152, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 742; Harter v. Harter, 181 la. 1181, 165 N. W. 315; Dampier v. St. Paul Trust Co., 46 Minn. 526, 49 N. W. 286; Barrett v. Heim, 152 Minn. 147, 188 N. W. 207; Taylor Undertaking Co. v. Smith, 183 Miss. 45, 183 So. 391; Young v. Conover, 120 N, J. L. 267, 199 A. 390; In re Kelly's Estate, 183 Wis. 485, 198 N. W. 280; Sawyer v. Hebard, 58 Vt. 375, 3 A. 529.\nItalics supplied.", "type": "majority", "author": "Griffin Smith, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Knott