{ "id": 1656625, "name": "Smith, Administrator v. Rudolph, Administrator", "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Rudolph", "decision_date": "1953-04-06", "docket_number": "5-61", "first_page": "900", "last_page": "903", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "221 Ark. 900" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "256 S.W.2d 736" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "31 S. W. 2d 955", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 Ark. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1389742 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/182/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 S. W. 2d 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "180 Ark. 959", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1393614 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/180/0959-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 348, "char_count": 5945, "ocr_confidence": 0.507, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.695322260125576e-08, "percentile": 0.5296420756576928 }, "sha256": "440238e1b9c97d1e3c1b1c52d4696f66656cf39f53f600e2f4470bd9d64fb842", "simhash": "1:a195ac27268bc62a", "word_count": 979 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:24.085624+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice George Rose Smith not participating." ], "parties": [ "Smith, Administrator v. Rudolph, Administrator." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "J. Seaborn Holt, J.\nMary Elizabeth Smith and Lilburne C, Smith were married December 4, 1950, A decree of divorce was granted to Mary Elizabeth in Pulaski County (their residence at the time) January 29, 1952, and also the care and custody of their only child (a little girl) Janet Elizabeth, who was about three and one-half months old. February 14, 1952, Mary Elizabeth and her mother left Gurdon for Arkadelphia (Clark County), in an automobile owned by F. H. Rudolph (Mary Elizabeth\u2019s father) and on the way, another car going in the opposite direction, collided with the Rudolph car, killing Mary Elizabeth and seriously and permanently injuring her mother.\nMarch 25, 1952, on an unverified petition of appellant alleging that Mary Elizabeth, at the time of her death, was a resident of Pulaski County, the Pulaski Probate Court appointed appellant administrator of her estate and at the same time approved a contract of employment entered into between appellant and his attorneys. Thereafter, on April 4, 1952, appellee, F. H. Rudolph, in a verified petition, applied for letters of administration in the Clark Probate Court on the estate of his daughter, Mary Elizabeth, alleging that, at the time of her death, she was a resident of Gurdon in Clark County. The Clark Probate Court granted his petition and appointed him administrator.\nApril 9, 1952, appellee, F. H. Rudolph, intervened in the Pulaski Probate Court proceedings asking that the order above appointing appellant, Lilburne C. Smith, administrator, be vacated and set aside for the reason that, at the time of her death, Mary Elizabeth was a resident of Gurdon, Clark County, and that the Pulaski Probate Court was without jurisdiction.\nUpon a hearing, the Pulaski Probate Court held that at the time of Mary Elizabeth\u2019s death, she was not a resident of Pulaski County, but in fact a resident of Clark County and that the Pulaski Probate Court was without jurisdiction to appoint appellant administrator. Accordingly, the Court voided its previous order of March 25, 1952, and also voided the attorneys\u2019 contract. This appeal followed.\nAs we view this record, the primary and decisive question presented is that of jurisdiction, which depends on the residence of Mary Elizabeth at the time of her death.\nSection 62-2102, Ark. Stats. 1947, a. (1) provides: \u201cThe venue . . . for administration shall be: (1) In the county in this state where the decedent resided at the time of his death.\u201d Therefore, if Mary Elizabeth were in fact a resident of Clark County at the time of her death, then the administrator of her estate must be appointed in Clark County. The probate court of any other county would have no jurisdiction other than ancillary. The above provision of the statute is mandatory. Shelton v. Shelton, 180 Ark. 959, 23 S. W. 2d 629, and Watson v. Lester, 182 Ark. 386, 31 S. W. 2d 955.\nHere, the Pulaski Probate Court, on a direct attack by appellee (Rudolph) on its jurisdiction, found that Mary Elizabeth was a resident of Clark County at the time of her death and that the Clark Probate Court was the only court having jurisdiction.\nWe have concluded that the preponderance of the testimony is not against the court\u2019s finding and judgment.\nThe evidence shows that at the time that Mary Elizabeth procured her divorce decree, her father sent a truck to Little Rock for her possessions and a car for her. She immediately removed everything she possessed to her father\u2019s home in Grurdon, where she lived until her death. Mary Elizabeth\u2019s aunt, Miss Edna Rudolph, testified that when Mary Elizabeth left Little Rock she told her she was going to reside with her parents. Mrs. Bates of Morrilton testified Mary Elizabeth told her in a letter that she was going to live with her parents. Mrs. Keyes of Grurdon, a former schoolmate of Mary Elizabeth, and Mrs. Jean H. Rudolph, an aunt, tended to corroborate the above testimony. Mary Elizabeth\u2019s Income Tax Return, filed January 21, 1952, gave her home address as \u201cc/o F. H. Rudolph, Grurdon, Arkansas.\u201d In an application for \u201cFederal Employment\u201d about January 17, 1952, Mary Elizabeth gave her address as \u201ccare of F. H. Rudolph, G-urdon, Arkansas,\u201d and expressed her desire for employment at \u201cCamp Chaffee, Arkansas.\u201d She gave as a reason for wanting employment \u201cnecessary to support self and daughter,\u201d and in answer to the question: \u201cIf you will accept appointment in certain locations only, give acceptable locations, \u2019 \u2019 she wrote: \u201cIn State of Arkansas outside Pulaski County.\u201d\nResidence being a matter of intention, we hold, as indicated, that the preponderance of the. testimony is not against the court\u2019s finding that Mary Elizabeth was a resident of Clark County at the time of her death.\nBut, says appellant, F. H. Rudolph, Mary Elizabeth\u2019s father was a disinterested party and disqualified to act as administrator of his daughter\u2019s estate. We do not agree. Section 62-2201, Ark. Stats. 1947, a. enumerates all persons qualified to serve as an administrator under four subdivisions, No. (4) providing: \u201cTo any other qualified person.\u201d Div. b. enumerates in six subdivisions: \u201cAll persons who are disqualified to serve\u201d and appellee, we hold, does not fall within any of the disqualifications. We hold that appellee here, in the circumstances, is qualified to serve as administrator in the Clark Probate Court under a. (4) above. It follows, therefore, that, as a legally appointed administrator, it is his duty, in his official capacity, to assemble all assets of his daughter\u2019s estate, institute any and all litigation for the benefit of such estate, and administer thereon as the law directs.\nAffirmed.\nJustice George Rose Smith not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "J. Seaborn Holt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "O. W. (Pete) Wiggins and Melbourne M. Martin, for appellant.", "Quinn Glover and Rose, Meek, House, Barron & Nash, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Smith, Administrator v. Rudolph, Administrator.\n5-61\n256 S. W. 2d 736\nOpinion delivered April 6, 1953.\nRehearing denied May 4, 1953.\nO. W. (Pete) Wiggins and Melbourne M. Martin, for appellant.\nQuinn Glover and Rose, Meek, House, Barron & Nash, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0900-01", "first_page_order": 924, "last_page_order": 927 }