Admrs v. Clark

• Decision Date: 30 June 1875
• Citation: 77 Ill. 471,1875 WL 8340
• Parties: WILLIAM STEELE et al. Admrs.v.GEORGE CLARK, Admr.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

77 Ill. 471

1875 WL 8340 (Ill.)

WILLIAM STEELE et al. Admrs.

v.GEORGE CLARK, Admr.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1875.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Clinton county; the Hon. AMOS WATTS, Judge, presiding. This was a claim, presented in the county court of Clinton county, by George Clark, administrator of the estate of Thomas Moore, deceased, against the estate of John Brewster, deceased, of which the appellants, William Steele and Nancy Brewster, were the administrators. The opinion of the court gives a substantial statement of the principal facts of the case.

Mr. G. VAN HOOREBEKE, for the appellants.

Mr. DARIUS KINGSBURY, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This proceeding was commenced before the county court of Clinton county, and taken by appeal to the circuit court, wherein a judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs for four hundred and forty-four dollars, and costs, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted by the defendants. It is a case in which the administrator of one Thomas Moore, deceased, presented a claim for allowance against the estate of John Brewster, deceased, for one thousand dollars. The county court allowed the claim to the extent of seven hundred and seventy-seven dollars, and, on appeal to the circuit court, the same was reduced to the above sum of four hundred and forty-four dollars.

A brief statement of the facts will show that this judgment ought not to stand.

It appears that Thomas Moore, the father of Thomas Moore in behalf of whose estate this claim is prosecuted, died in 1852 or 1853, leaving an estate in land, which descended to his son, Robert Moore, this Thomas Moore, and a granddaughter, Mary Stephens; that, in 1850, Thomas Moore, the younger, then about twenty years of age, left this State for California, and has not been heard from since 1866. In 1853, proceedings were instituted for a partition of the estate of Thomas Moore, senior, and one Alfred Tucker was appointed a commissioner to make partition and pay over the proceeds to these several heirs, each share amounting to four hundred and forty-four dollars, which the commissioner received in money, and paid to John Brewster, deceased, the guardian of Mary Stephens, her share, to Robert Moore his share, and, without any authority whatever, as appears, paid to Robert his brother Thomas' share. In 1859 or 1860, Robert Moore, being in debt to his brother Thomas in this sum of four hundred and forty-four dollars, and also to other parties, agreed to sell his farm to Brewster, to pay his debts, and among them this debt to his brother Thomas. For what price the farm was sold, does not appear. Brewster's administrator proved one payment of more than two hundred dollars to one Fouke, a creditor of Robert, and offered to show for what the farm was sold by Robert Moore to him. This evidence the court refused to admit. The defense was, the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries and the Statute of Limitations.

To sustain the recovery, it is urged by appellee that this was a trust fund, and the recovery not barred by the Statute of Limitations. It is claimed and argued by appellee that Brewster, in his lifetime, had become security for the payment of the money received by Robert Moore, belonging to his brother Thomas, which fact, they insist, gives it the character of trust money, and not barred by the Statute of Limitations. A careful examination of the record betrays the existence of no such fact. Neither Dougherty, Dill, the Clarks, nor Mrs. Pratt, called for appellee, state anything of the kind. The simple fact is, that Brewster, on the purchase of Robert Moore's farm, undertook to pay this debt Robert then owed his brother Thomas. As Dougherty states it, Brewster told his brother he had bought Robert Moore's farm, and had become...