In re Will of Middleton

Supreme Court of Iowa

In re Will of Middleton

34 N.W. 193, 72 Iowa 424

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedOctober 6, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 34 N.W. 193 (In re Will of Middleton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Will of Middleton, 34 N.W. 193, 72 Iowa 424 (iowa 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, J.

I. The will involved in the case disposes of personal property, and is nuncupative. It was admitted to probate upon a notice by publication, required by Code, § 2341. Soon after, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the order of probate, on the grounds that no notice was served upon the defendants, — one of them being the administrator of the estate; that the value of the property bequeathed exceeds $300; and that “the order covers more than the mere probate of the will.” The motion was overruled.

II. The notice of the presentation' of the will for probate was by publication, and conforms to the requirements of section 2341 of the Code. No other, or further notice was required to give the circuit court jurisdiction in the proceed ings for the probate of the will. Farrell v. Leighton, 49 Iowa, 174.

III. The record does not contain the evidence submitted to the circuit court in the probate proceedings. We cannot, therefore, consider the objection made by defendants, to the effect that the value of the property exceeded $300, the limit of the disposition of personal property by nuncupative wills. (Code, § 2324.) Affidavits were filed, in support of the motion, tending to show that the value -of the property covered by the will exceeded $300. These affidavits were ex parte, and filed in support of a motion not authorized by the statute; there being no provision under which the order for the probate of a will may be assailed in that way. [426]*426Defendants’ remedy to review tbe order is by appeal therefrom, or by an original action. Code, § 2353; Leighton v. Orr, 44 Iowa, 679.

IV. The last ground of the motion, we presume, is based upon the fact that by the order of probate the personal property bequeathed was required to be held for the use of the testator’s widow, and at her death to go to plaintiff. • The will, as established by the order of probate, gave the widow the use of the property during her life-time, and at her death directs that the property shall go to plaintiff. The court’s order was correct, as the rights of the parties could not have been protected in any other way.

The judgment of the circuit court is

Aebtemed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Beck, J.

I. The will involved in the case disposes of personal property, and is nuncupative. It was admitted to probate upon a notice by publication, required by Code, § 2341. Soon after, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the order of probate, on the grounds that no notice was served upon the defendants, — one of them being the administrator of the estate; that the value of the property bequeathed exceeds $300; and that “the order covers more than the mere probate of the will.” The motion was overruled.

II. The notice of the presentation' of the will for probate was by publication, and conforms to the requirements of section 2341 of the Code. No other, or further notice was required to give the circuit court jurisdiction in the proceed ings for the probate of the will. Farrell v. Leighton, 49 Iowa, 174.

III. The record does not contain the evidence submitted to the circuit court in the probate proceedings. We cannot, therefore, consider the objection made by defendants, to the effect that the value of the property exceeded $300, the limit of the disposition of personal property by nuncupative wills. (Code, § 2324.) Affidavits were filed, in support of the motion, tending to show that the value -of the property covered by the will exceeded $300. These affidavits were ex parte, and filed in support of a motion not authorized by the statute; there being no provision under which the order for the probate of a will may be assailed in that way. [426]*426Defendants’ remedy to review tbe order is by appeal therefrom, or by an original action. Code, § 2353; Leighton v. Orr, 44 Iowa, 679.

IV. The last ground of the motion, we presume, is based upon the fact that by the order of probate the personal property bequeathed was required to be held for the use of the testator’s widow, and at her death to go to plaintiff. • The will, as established by the order of probate, gave the widow the use of the property during her life-time, and at her death directs that the property shall go to plaintiff. The court’s order was correct, as the rights of the parties could not have been protected in any other way.

The judgment of the circuit court is

Aebtemed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.W. 193, 72 Iowa 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-will-of-middleton-iowa-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack