{
  "id": 1464480,
  "name": "Mills v. Latham",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mills v. Latham",
  "decision_date": "1949-04-18",
  "docket_number": "4-8757",
  "first_page": "128",
  "last_page": "129",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "215 Ark. 128"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "219 S.W.2d 609"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "205 Ark. 665",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1488288
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/205/0665-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 S. W. 2d 508",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 Ark. 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1435378
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/185/0020-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 Ark. 675",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1488325
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/205/0675-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 Ark. 353",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1453448
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/200/0353-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 Ark. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1459748
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/198/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 Ark. 755",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725272
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/214/0755-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 2481,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.281137124621251e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3310845535782202
    },
    "sha256": "059a6ad392d12430a3d878fdba5c99040691e336cfe1163259b2f65fb3c80f89",
    "simhash": "1:a70fbd0fe92aff46",
    "word_count": 425
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:42:13.131733+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mills v. Latham."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nJohn W. Heller, a resident of Searcy County, died June 23, 1947. A writing dated September 9, 1946, with a modification dated June 21, 1947, was offered for probate at Marshall June 30, 1947. By order of \u201cN. J. Henley, Referee in Probate,\u201d it was found that the document was Heller\u2019s last will and testament, that the addition or modification was a properly executed codicil, and that \u201call necessary parties at interest are duly before the Court.\u201d A direction was that the will be admitted to probate, and that letters testamentary be issued to Wm. T. Mills, who would serve without bond.\nMills, in a Chancery action, brought to that Court\u2019s attention certain alleged contradictions or inconsistencies, and concluded with a prayer that the will be construed, and that the Court \u201cspecifically determine who are the beneficiaries\u201d and the amount of property to which each would be entitled. Methodist Orphans Home Association of St. Louis, by answer and a pleading in the nature of an intervention, asked the Court to declare it was the testator\u2019s intention that the Association should receive \u201call money in the estate.\u201d\nFrom a decree construing the alleged will, Mills has appealed.\nThere is an affirmative record-showing that admission of the will to probate was on order of a Referee, and there is no contention that the Court, functioning as such, has acted. In principle, the transaction is not distinguishable from Jansen v. Blissenbach, 214 Ark. 755, 217 S. W. 2d 849.\nRecognizing, however, that evidence of Court approval may have.been inadvertently omitted from the transcript, the cause is remanded, although the judgment must be reversed.\nIt is appropriate to mention that Amendment No. 24 to \u00a7\u00a7 19, 34, and 35 of Art. 7 of the Constitution did not, ipso facto, consolidate Chancery and Probate Courts, hence original jurisdiction of Probate was not affected. Lewis v. Smith, 198 Ark. 244, 129 S. W. 2d 229; Wooten v. Penuel, 200 Ark. 353, 140 S. W. 2d 108; Gray v. Fulton, 205 Ark. 675, 170 S. W. 2d 384. Probate jurisdiction was discussed by Mr. Justice Butler in Huff v. Hot Springs Savings, Trust, and Guaranty Co., 185 Ark. 20, 45 S. W. 2d 508, and in Jesseph v. Leveridge, 205 Ark. 665, 170 S. W. 2d 71. We do not in this proceeding draw the jurisdictional line.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. F. Reeves, J. Loyd Shouse and J. F. Koone, for appellant.",
      "Opie Rogers, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mills v. Latham.\n4-8757\n219 S. W. 2d 609\nOpinion delivered April 18, 1949.\nW. F. Reeves, J. Loyd Shouse and J. F. Koone, for appellant.\nOpie Rogers, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0128-01",
  "first_page_order": 150,
  "last_page_order": 151
}
