Peebles v. Acker
Decision Date | 12 December 1892 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | HELEN PEEBLES ET AL. v. JOEL M. ACKER |
FROM the chancery court of Monroe county, HON. BAXTER MCFARLAND Chancellor.
The will of W. C. Blackburn, who died in 1859, contained the following clauses:
The widow, Mary A. Blackburn, was named as executrix of the will, without bond, with power to sell any of the property devised, and invest the proceeds in other property, if to the interest of the estate.
The will was probated in 1860, and letters testamentary granted to said Mary A. Blackburn, and she continued to be executrix, and resided on the land until her death in 1887, without ever having filed an account or paid the legacy.
In 1880, William L. Blackburn, the son named in the will, presumably claiming title to the land owned by the testator, his mother having only a dower interest, executed a trust-deed thereon to secure an indebtedness to appellee, Joel M. Acker. This trust-deed was foreclosed in 1885, the land being bought in by Acker, who received a deed from the trustee.
Meantime, Ada Leonora McGuire, the above mentioned legatee, was married in 1867, at the age of twenty, to J. B. Walton, and died during her coverture, in 1870, leaving one child her sole heir. This child died in 1884, leaving the father his sole heir, and consequently owner of the unpaid legacy. J. B. Walton made a written assignment of the legacy to W. D. Walton, who assigned it to Helen Peebles and others, the appellants, who are the heirs of said executrix and of William L. Blackburn.
This bill was filed in 1890 by Acker against said appellants, who are in possession of the land, claiming the same, to cancel their claim as a cloud, and for possession.
Defendants answered, and also filed a cross-bill, setting up, among other things, that the legacy owned by them is a charge on the land in controversy, and praying that it be subjected to the charge.
The answer of complainant to the cross-bill denies that the legacy is a charge on the land, and avers that, if it ever was such, it has been barred by the statute of limitations of six and of ten years. It is not necessary to state the case in any other aspect. There was a final decree for complainant, Acker, and defendants appeal.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
Houston & Reynolds, for appellants.
1. Where the testator, after giving legacies, makes no specific devise of realty, but blends it with the personalty, he thereby charges the realty with the payment of the legacies. 1 Redf. on Wills, 278, 279; Cady v. Cady, 67 Miss. 425; Heatherington v. Lewenberg, 61 Ib., 372; Knotts v. Bailey, 54 Ib., 235; Turner v. Turner, 57 Ib., 775; Perry on Trusts, § 570; Lewis v. Darling, 16 How., 10.
2. The statute of limitations has never begun to run. The legacy is charged on the land, and is an express trust, which the executrix, by accepting the administration, became bound to pay. She has never been discharged, and has never accounted. No cause of action could accrue until a breach of the trust, and nothing has happened to set the statute in motion. Cooper v. Cooper, 61 Miss. 676; Templeton v. Tompkins, 45 Ib., 424; North v. James, 61 Ib., 761; Roberts v. Roberts, 34 Ib., 322.
Sykes & Richardson, for appellee.
Ever since 1848, our statutes have given a right of action at law to recover legacies. The trust here is an implied trust, and is not chargeable on the land; and, hence, both the six and ten-year statutes of limitations apply....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brickell v. Lightcap
... ... Cady v ... Cady, 67 Miss. 431, 7 So. 216; Knotts v ... Bailey, 54 Miss. 235, 28 Am. Rep. 348; Peebles v ... Acker, 70 Miss. 359, 12 So. 248; Heatherington v ... Lewenberg, 61 Miss. 372; Turner v. Turner, 57 ... Miss. 775; Perkins v. Bank, 81 ... ...
-
State v. Woodruff
... ... 515, ... 131 Miss. 526; County of Morgan v. Allen, 102 U.S ... 489, 26 L.Ed. 498; Cooper v. Cooper, 61 Miss. 696; ... Peoples v. Acker, 70 Miss. 356; Edwards v ... Kelly, 83. Miss. 144; Westbrook v. Munger, 62 ... Miss. 316; Chapter 23, Acts of 1888 ... The ... Mead v ... Day, 54 Miss. 58; McGehee v. Martin, 53 Miss. 519; ... Harkreader v. Clayton, 56 Miss. 383; Mayer v ... Peebles, 58, Miss. 628; Byrd v. McDonald, 28 ... So. 847; McLemore v. Anderson, 92 Miss. 59; ... Seals v. Perkins, 96 Miss. 704; McLemore v ... ...
-
Hayes v. First Joint Stock Land Bank
... ... Munger, 61 Miss. 329; Edwards v ... Kelly, 83 Miss. 144, 35 So. 418; Self v. Drainage ... District, 158 Miss. 7, 128 So. 339; Peebles v ... Acker, [174 Miss. 882] 70 Miss. 356, 12 So. 248; ... Bell v. Rudolph, 12 So. 153; Savings Bank & Loan ... Assn. v. Tart, 81 Miss. 276, 32 ... ...
-
O'Day v. O'Day
...402; Canal v. Clements, 132 Ind. 163; Hill v. Bean, 68 Me. 200; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 13 Allen 252; Blaney v. Blaney, 1 Cush. 107; Peebles v. Acker, 70 Miss. 356; McQuinn Lilly, 131 Mo. 9; 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. sec. 1247; Massacker v. Massacker, 13 N.J.Eq. 264; Dey v. Dey, 19 N.J.Eq. 137; Paxson v. P......