Miller v. Miller

82 Ill. 463
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 82 Ill. 463 (Miller v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. Miller, 82 Ill. 463 (Ill. 1876).

Opinion

Mr."Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellant contends that no widow’s award can lawfully be allowed, because “ the same was not presented to the county court for confirmation or approval within two years from the issuing of letters of administration.”

The claim of a widow for “ the widow’s award,” out of the personal property of an estate, is not, under our statute, a “ demand ” against the estate, in the same sense as the claim of a creditor. It may more properly be denominated a right to a portion of the personal property of the estate. (Cruce v. Cruce et al. 21 Ill. 47.) In a certain sense it may be called a demand against the estate, and it is so called in the second clause of section 70, of the chapter on “ The Administration of Estates,” R. S. 1874. page 116; but the reasons applicable to the provision which bars all demands not presented within two years from the granting of letters, have no application to the widow’s award. The administrator is not presumed to be cognizant of all claims of mere creditors of deceased, and therefore a necessity existed that such claims should be exhibited within some limited time, so that a definite basis might be had on which to dispose of the assets. The widow’s award, however, requires no such presentation. The whole tenor of the statute shows that the preservation of the same requires no action on the part of the widow whatever, until she has notice that the award has been made by the appraisers.

In' chapter 3, of Eevised Statutes of 1874, it is provided, that whenever letters of administration are granted, the administrator shall make out a full inventory of the property of the1-estate, which shall he returned, to the office of the clerk of the county court within three months from the date bf the letters of administration. It is also provided, that on granting letters of administration, the connty court shall appoint three appraisers to appraise the personal estate, and, after taking the oath prescribed, it is provided that “ the appraisers shall proceed, as soon as conveniently'may be, to the discharge of their duty, and when the bill of appraisement is completed, the appraisers are required, by statute, to certify the same, and deliver the same to the administrator, to be. by him returned to the clerk’s office within three months from the date of the letters of administration.

"" It is further enacted that “ the widow residing in this State, of a deceased husband whose estate is administered in this State, shall, in all cases, (in exclusion of debts, claims, charges, legacies and bequests, except funeral expenses,) be allowed, as her sole and exclusive property forever, the following ” (enumerating the list of personal property), “ which shall be known as the widow’s award.” *"* * “The appraisers shall make out and certify to the county court an estimate of the value of each of the several items of property allowed to the widow, and it shall be lawful for the widow to elect whether she will take the specific articles set apart to her, or take the amount thereof out of other personal property at the appraised value thereof, or whether she will take the amount thereof in money. "x" * And in a,Tl such cases, it shall be the duty of the * * * administrator to notify the widow as soon as such appraisement shall he made, and to set apart to her such article or articles of personal property, not exceeding the amount to which she-may be entitled, and as she may select. * * * When there is not property of the estate of the kinds mentioned in'the statute, the appraisers may award the widow a gross- sum in lieu thereof, except for family pictures, jewels' and ornaments. If the administrator discovers, at any time after an inventory-and appraisement is made, that the assets do .not exceed the amount of the widow’s allowance, after. der ducting the necessary expenses incurred, he shall report the facts to the court; and if the court finds the report to he true, he shall order said assets to be delivered to the widow by the administrator, and discharge the administrator from further duty.” ■ .

■ It is‘plain, from the whole tenor of these statutory regula7 fcions, that, in. the phrase (found in the seventh clause of secr tien 70, page 116, R. S. of 1874,) “and all demands not (exhibited within two years, as aforesaid, shall be- forever barred,” the word “demands” was not intended to embrace what is known as “ the widow’s award,” The word “ demands,” in that phrase, as will appear by the context, has relation alone to such demands against the administrator as are required to be exhibited to the court by the parties to whom they belong. In one sense, “ the widow’s award ” is undoubtedly a “ demand against the -estate,” and it is mentioned. as such in the-second clause of this section 70, hut the same words in the seventh clause of the section, it is evident, are not" used in the samp sense. We are all of opinion that the limitation of two years found in this section 70 has no reference whatever to the matter of “ the widow’s award.” ,

In passing upon this question, and upon another question to be hereafter mentioned, it is well to inquire what meaning is to be attached to the word “ allowed,” as used in this statute, in reference to the matter of “ the widow’s award.” Does the statute require, as an essential, that the county court shall make an order of allowance, in order to invest the widow with an available and definite right to “ the widow’s award ?” In section 74 it is said, “ the widow * * * shall (in all cases, in exclusion of debts, claims, charges, legacies and bequests, except for funeral expenses,)- be allowed, as her sole and exclusive property forever,” etc., “ which shall he known as. the widow’s award.”

By whom is this allowance to be made? Is it by the appraisers, or by the administrator, or by the order of the county court, or is it by the effect of the statute, that she is allowed this widow’s award by law, and that her right is not dependent upon the action of the administrator, appraisers, or the court ? Has either the administrator, or the appraisers, or the county court, the jurisdiction to determine that she shall not he allowed this award?

Section 75 provides that “ the appraisers shall make out and certify to the county court an estimate of the value of each of the several items of property allowed to the widow.” The county court is not required, by the statute, to make any order prior to this certificate, adjudging that the widow shall be allowed u the widow’s award,” or adjudging what are the articles of property of which the appraisers are to make an estimate of the value, and certify the same. That is fixed by statute. Again, it is enacted in the same section, that, where there is not property of the estate of the kinds mentioned in the enumeration of the articles which are to constitute the widow’s award, “ the appraisers may amaré the widow a gross sum in lieu thereof,” etc. The law gives her certain articles of property, or their value. The judgment of the appraisers is, by law, to fix the value of the' items of personal property so allowed by statute to the widow, and, so far as we are advised, it is the universal practice that this estimate be approved or set aside by the court.

While the statute does not, in express words, require that this estimate of value by the appraisers should be approved by the court, in order to give it binding force as such, it has long been the practice to do so, and it seems very appropriate that it should be so.

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

Related

In re Estate of Denten
2012 IL App (2d) 110814 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2012)
Matter of Estate of Hubbard
369 N.E.2d 292 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1977)
Molner v. United States
175 F. Supp. 271 (N.D. Illinois, 1959)
Harris v. Vermilion County Building Ass'n
282 Ill. App. 1 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1935)
In re Estate of Lalla
281 Ill. App. 124 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1935)
In re Estate of Hodson
201 Ill. App. 412 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1916)
Mostoller v. Gove
188 Ill. App. 215 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1914)
Chapman v. American Surety Co.
104 N.E. 247 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1914)
Simek v. Urban
159 Ill. App. 373 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1911)
Allen v. Hempstead
154 Ill. App. 91 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1910)
Estate of Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer
152 Ill. App. 268 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1909)
Field v. Field
117 Ill. App. 307 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
In re the Estate of Scoville
20 Ill. App. 426 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1886)
Boyer v. Boyer
21 Ill. App. 534 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1886)
Marshall v. Rose
86 Ill. 374 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 Ill. 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-miller-ill-1876.