Summary
In Robbins v. Riales, 221 Ga. 225, 227 (144 S.E.2d 80), it was held that the general rule is that one who obtains a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction will not be heard to question its validity.
Summary of this case from Finch v. FinchOpinion
23012.
ARGUED JUNE 15, 1965.
DECIDED JULY 8, 1965. REHEARING DENIED JULY 26, 1965.
Equitable petition. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Hubert.
Henry M. Henderson, for plaintiff in error.
M. David Merritt, contra.
For reasons stated in the opinion the petition failed to state a cause of action for any of the relief sought and was properly dismissed on demurrer.
ARGUED JUNE 15, 1965 — DECIDED JULY 8, 1965 — REHEARING DENIED JULY 26, 1965.
Mrs. Annie M. McKissick, a resident of Fulton County, died intestate on April 15, 1963, leaving no estate except 62 shares of common stock in Sears, Roebuck Company, the par value of which was $3 per share. Her only heirs at law were Mrs. Inez M. Robbins and Mrs. Gladys M. Hutto, her daughters, and Rutherford B. McKissick, Jr., Mrs. Florence M. Riales and Mrs. Claudia M. Gunn, her grandchildren. Under and pursuant to the provisions of an Act approved March 28, 1958 as amended in 1959 (Ga. L. 1958, p. 355; Ga. L. 1959, p. 111) all of the heirs at law of the deceased Mrs. McKissick filed a petition in the Court of Ordinary of Fulton County for an order declaring that no administration of decedent's estate was necessary and such an order was granted at the September term, 1964, of that court to which there was no exception. On December 22, 1964, Mrs. Inez M. Robbins filed a suit in the Superior Court of DeKalb County against Mrs. Florence M. Riales and the other heirs at law of the deceased Mrs. McKissick for a judgment declaring her to be the owner of the 62 shares of stock which her mother owned at the time of her death or in the alternative for a judgment setting aside the order rendered by the court of ordinary declaring and adjudicating that no administration of the estate of Mrs. McKissick was necessary. Her petition alleges that her mother lived with her at the time of her death; that she supported her during a lengthy illness and paid the expenses of her funeral and burial, the cost of which far exceeded the value of the 62 shares of stock left by her. Since petitioner had supported and maintained her mother during a lengthy illness and paid her burial expenses, it was her understanding that the other heirs at law were agreeable to her receiving the 62 shares of stock left by her mother but there is no allegation in the petition that the other heirs at law of the deceased were in fact agreeable to petitioner having such stock. Her petition also alleges that the defendant Mrs. Riales and all of the other heirs at law of the deceased except Mrs. Hutto had, since such order was granted, refused to transfer and assign to petitioner their respective interest in the 62 shares of stock left by the deceased. A general demurrer which all of the defendants, except Mrs. Hutto, interposed to the petition was sustained and Mrs. Robbins excepted to that judgment.
1. The order declaring that no administration of the estate of the deceased intestate was necessary which the plaintiff and the other heirs at law of Mrs. McKissick obtained from the Fulton County Court of Ordinary amounts in law to an adjudication that there was no debt or claim against the decedent's estate such as the one here declared upon; that the heirs at law of the deceased were entitled to take the property she owned at the time of her death without administration; and that they had agreed upon a division of it amicably among themselves; and the averment of the petition which alleges that it was petitioner's understanding from the nature of her claim that the other heirs at law of the deceased were agreeable to her having the 62 shares of stock her mother owned at the time of her death does not amount to an allegation that the other heirs at law had agreed for petitioner to have exclusive ownership of such shares of stock. Ga. L. 1958, p. 355; Ga. L. 1959, p. 111.
2. Since the petition contains no allegations that petitioner was fraudulently induced in any way by any of the other heirs at law to join with them in applying for and obtaining the order that no administration of Mrs. McKissick's estate was necessary, she is in no position to ask that it be set aside. The general rule is that one who obtains a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction will not be heard to question its validity, and the petition in this case alleges no facts sufficient to show the inapplicability of such general rule. Fender v. Crosby, 209 Ga. 896 (1) ( 76 S.E.2d 769); Phillips v. Phillips, 211 Ga. 305 (1) ( 85 S.E.2d 427).
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.