{ "id": 1449856, "name": "Davie, Executrix, v. Smoot", "name_abbreviation": "Davie v. Smoot", "decision_date": "1941-04-21", "docket_number": "4-6296", "first_page": "294", "last_page": "299", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "202 Ark. 294" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "150 S.W.2d 50" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "284 S. W. 780", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 Ark. 1187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 Ark. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1453448 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/200/0353-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 548, "char_count": 10239, "ocr_confidence": 0.536, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.807448165349468e-07, "percentile": 0.717305526306746 }, "sha256": "89aa256fee67068b965642707aae99a7b00e3d3329dcec6438eeade01a7b7af7", "simhash": "1:43cd6e6a9f6c1fca", "word_count": 1766 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:41:33.899118+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Davie, Executrix, v. Smoot." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Grieein Smith, C. J.\nIf on appeal lawsuits could be decided by weighing' the unsupported declarations of counsel for appellant against the defensive explanations of appellee\u2019s legal aids, the case at bar would be less perplexing. If without a complete record, and in the absence of testimony, we could give to ex parte statements appearing in the briefs that degree of verity so earnestly contended for, a decision based upon merit might he possible in spite of the difficulty in deciding between conflicting avouchments; but more often the result would serve to emphasize and justify the rule that argument must be predicated upon competent evidence as distinguished from the escalade of desire.\nGeorge Davie died in 1938, leaving a substantial estate and attending claims to it. After living as a bachelor for many years, Davie married Electa Pearcey. He obtained a divorce from which Mrs. Davie unsuccessfully appealed in 1926. Twelve years later they remarried and were living together when George Davie died. Appellee, a half sister forty years younger than the decedent, is next of kin.\nIn 1936 George Davie made a will. He left $20 to Mrs. Bobbie Welch, $5 to Allie Smoot (appellee) and devised and bequeathed the remainder of his property to his wife, who was constituted executrix with the request that she be permitted to serve without bond. February 13, 1939, letters testamentary were issued to her.\nAn appraisement was filed May 4, 1939. In addition to notes, secured and unsecured, seventeen tracts of land in White county and six tracts in Prairie county were listed; also town property in Beebe. An annual settlement (undated) was made by the executrix, showing receipts of $1,036.31. Disbursements of $1,038.79 are shown.\nOctober 14, 1940, the probate court made an order removing Mrs. Davie as executrix. Mrs. Smoot was appointed administratrix in succession and was directed to execute a $2,000 bond \u201cin some surety company authorized to do business in Arkansas.\u201d\nIn appellant\u2019s brief it is asserted that about thirty days after George Davie died the will was probated. The record does not show such order. It is then stated: \u201cUpon filing the will for probate the anticipated contest was filed by Allie May Smoot.\u201d Again, the record is silent. However, it is conceded that the widow elected to renounce the will and to take under the statutes. Commissioners were appointed to allot dower in the lands. The order recites a petition by Mrs. Davie, granting of the request, and retention of jurisdiction for further orders.\nAppellant contends that the removal of Mrs. Davie as executrix was void because the order shows on its face she was not in court, and that she had not been served with notice. It is also contended that no complaint against her was filed, as required by \u00a7 37 of Pope\u2019s Digest, and that there was no service; also, that the order does not show on its face facts essential to jurisdiction.\nBy certiorari appellee has brought up a certified order, nunc pro tunc, made March 10, 1941. It is copied in full in the margin. It is contended, however, that the court was without jurisdiction to make the order while there was pending an appeal from the judgment dismissing appellant as executrix and appointing commissioners to assign dower. The answer is that courts have continuing jurisdiction to correct their records in order to make them speak the truth.\nIt is next insisted that the order attempting to allot dower is void; that it shows on its face appellant was not in court; that she had not been served with notice; that no petition for allotment of dower was filed in probate court; that no summons was served on all interested parties; that the probate court of White county could not make a valid order assigning dower in lands in Prairie county; that the chancery court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, and the probate court could not lift the cause out of chancery court; and, finally, it is contended that the order fails to show on its face a finding of facts essential to jurisdiction.\nAppellant, by certiorari, has exhibited her response to notice that application would be made for the order, nunc pro tunc; response filed March 10, 1941, by W. W. Shepherd to notice of application for the order; order removing appellant; order relating to dower, and appointment of commissioners, and report of commissioners dated October 21,1940.\nAt page 35 of appellant\u2019s brief there is copied what purports to be a petition in the White chancery court. At brief page 10, appellant says she \u201c. . . asked the chancery court to assign her dower in White and Prairie counties.\u201d At brief' page 41, following the petition, appellant says:\n\u201cSummons was served and returned on all parties. . . . On the chancery judge\u2019s docket in this case (being case No. 750) the following appears in the judge\u2019s handwriting: \u2018February 12,1940, order appointing commissioners to set aside dower.\u2019 \u201d\nAlthough this petition does not appear in the record and should not' be in the brief, nor should there be reference to it, appellant has presented it in support of the argument that the chancery court had jurisdiction to appoint commissioners, and that the probate court lacked jurisdiction for want of a petition and because lands were in two counties. Crabtree\u2019s Adm\u2019rs v. Crabtree, 5 Ark. (5 Pike) 638.\nWhile it is true that the order of -September 16,1940, appointing commissioners, appears to have been in probate court, it is signed \u201cPrank H. Dodge.\u201d Whether he acted as chancellor or probate judge cannot be determined from the record. No other order or judgment of the probate court of even date appears.\nThe first paragraph of the order of September 16, 1940, is: \u2018 \u2018 On this day came on to be heard the petition of Mrs. Electa Davie . . . for allotment of her dower,\u201d etc.\n' Amendment No. 24 to the constitution does' not permit courts of chancery to lift estates out of courts of probate and to apply equitable principles in disposing of controversies cognizable only in' probate. Wooten v. Penuel, 200 Ark. 353, 140 S. W. 2d 108.\nFrom the record we are unable to say that the chancellor was not acting as such in appointing commissioners to assign dower, and since the entire record' is not before us there is a presumption that action was by the court having jurisdiction.\nThe record is certified by G. 'Carl Smith, \u201ccounty and circuit clerk.\u201d The verification is that Smith \u201c. . . does hereby certify that the foregoing fifteen pages of typewritten matter contain a true and perfect copy of the originals as [they] appear in my files and duly recorded in the records of White county.\u201d\nHalf of the record, or any part of it, might have been omitted, and still the certificate could be true. Its effect is merely to attest genuineness of the fifteen pages.\nBecause the record is fragmentary \u2014 a fact emphasized by the efforts of counsel for appellant to use his brief to bridge the gaps \u2014 we cannot say that the court erred.\nAffirmed.\nDavie v. Davie, 171 Ark. 1187, 284 S. W. 780.\n\u201cOn this 10th day of March, 1941, comes Allie May Smoot in person and by her solicitors, Harry Neelly and C. E. Yingling, and the respondents, Mrs. Electa Davie and W. W. \u25a0 Shepherd, come not but wholly make default herein; and this cause is submitted upon the petition of Mrs. Allie May Smoot, as only heir at law of George C. Davie, deceased, for correction of an order made and entered by this court on the 14th'day of October, 1940, removing Mrs. Electa Davie as executrix of the estate of George C. Davie, deceased, and appointing Allie May Smoot as administratrix in succession; and notice of the filing of said.petition and the hearing upon same on March 10, 1941, having been duly served upon W. W. Shepherd, attorney of record of Mrs. Electa Davie, and upon Mrs. Electa Davie; and the reply of Mrs. Electa Davie to the notice and the petition for a nunc pro tunc order to change or modify an order made on the 14th day of October, 1940, removing said Mrs. Electa Davie as executrix, and also the response of W. W. Shepherd, and oral testimony taken in open court, of Harry Neely and C. E. Yingling, from all of which the court finds:\n\u201cThat on and prior to October 14, 1940, the said Mrs. Electa Davie, as executrix of the estate of George C. Davie, deceased, was represented by W. W. Shepherd and Charles W. Mehaffy as her solicitors, and that they appeared in this court in connection with this action on several occasions prior to this date, and that the said Mrs. Electa Davie knew Charles W. Mehaffy, as well as W. W. Shepherd, was appearing in said matter as her attorney; that both of said attorneys, W. W. Shepherd and Charles W. Mehaffy had actual knowledge of the filing of the petition by Allie May Smoot for the removal of said Mrs. Electa Davie as executrix of the estate of George C. Davie on the 14th day of October, 1940, and prior thereto.\n\u201cAnd the court being well and sufficiently advised as to all matters of fact and law arising herein, and the premises being fully seen, doth order, adjudge and decree that the said Electa Davie, executrix of the estate of George C. Davie, deceased, be and she is hereby removed, and she is ordered and directed to file a complete accounting of her executrixship on or before the next term of this court; and it is further considered, ordered and decreed that Allie May Smoot, as only heir at law of George C. Davie, deceased, be, and she is hereby appointed administratrix in succession upon her petition for her appointment, duly verified, and the filing of a bond in the sum of $2,000 in some surety company authorized to do business in the state of Arkansas.\n\u201cAnd this order and decree having been made on October 14, 1940, but not having been entered of record on said date, is entered now for then.\u201d\nIt is styled: \u201cMrs. Electa Davie v. Estate of George C. Davie, Deceased; Allie May Smoot; Citizens Bank of Beebe, and Ewell Doss.\u201d\nIn White county the county clerk is clerk of the probate court, but the circuit clerk is also clerk of the chancery court.", "type": "majority", "author": "Grieein Smith, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "William W. Shepherd, for appellant.", "Emmett Vaughan, Harry Neelly and G. E. Tingling, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Davie, Executrix, v. Smoot.\n4-6296\n150 S. W. 2d 50\nOpinion delivered April 21, 1941.\nWilliam W. Shepherd, for appellant.\nEmmett Vaughan, Harry Neelly and G. E. Tingling, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0294-01", "first_page_order": 312, "last_page_order": 317 }