Austin v. Raiford

• Decision Date: 30 September 1881
• Citation: 68 Ga. 201
• Parties: Austin et al. vs. Raiford et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

68 Ga. 201

Austin et al. vs. Raiford et al.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

SEPTEMBER TERM, 1881.

Administrators and Executors. Principal and Surety. Non-suit. Statute of Limitations. Before Judge Willis. Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1881.

Reported in the decision.

Thornton & Grimes; Blandford & Garrard, for plaintiffs in error.

D. H. Burts; peabody & Brannon, for defendants.

Speer, Justice.

This was a bill filed in Muscogee superior court, on October 4th, 1875, in which the complainants show that their father, A. B. Austin, died in Chattahoochee county, Ga, in the fall of i860, leaving a large estate consisting of negroes, lands, stock of various kinds, cotton, cash and debts due the estate. That on December 3d, 1860, one John Bonnell became administrator, with W. W. Shipp his only security. That the negro property was divided among the heirs, and that on December 20th, 1860, the perishable property sold for $2,959.50. That on first Tuesday in October, 1861, the real estate was sold by the administrator, and was bought by W. W. Shipp, his security, for $3,401.00. That Bonneh made return June 22d, 1861, showing receipts of $1,814.96 and disbursements of $1,996.27. That Bonnell made return May 10th, 1862, showing receipts of $3,464.06, and disbursements of $603.59. That Bonnell, the administrator, went to the war, and that Shipp, the security, took entire control and management of the property. That Bonnell died in Richmond, Va., July 9th, 1864. That said estate from that date to July 30th, 1866, was entirely unrepresented. That the same remained in the possession of Shipp, the security, and purchaser of the real estate. That on the last mentioned date, July 30th, 1866, E. G. Raiford, then of Chattahoochee county, but at the time of the filing of this bill, a citizen of Muscogee county, was appointed administrator de bonis non of said estate, with W. W. Shipp lis security. The bill prays for an account and settlement, and 1 discovery as to the amount of said estate in the hands of Shipp, and what amount in the hands A Raiford, and that each may be decreed to pay the heirs whatever amount may be coming to them.

Raiford, by his answer, admits chat Shipp was his security, and as such he(Shipp), in the fall of 1866, turned overto him as assets of the estate, some notes, amounting to $986.39, most of which were insolvent, and certain certificates of money to buy Confederate bonds, amounting to $700.00, that he has paid out all moneys collected, appending his return as part of his answer.

Shipp answered that he was security for both Bonnell and Raiford, as charged; that as agent of Bonnell he held the assets until July, 1864, when Bonnell died. When Raiford was appointed in July, 1866, he turned over to Raiford all the assets in his hands, and that in the summer of 1866 he bought out most of the heirs for small sums, $40.00 or $50.00 each, and attaches their receipts as exhibits to his answer.

Complainants amended their bill by alleging that Shipp purchased the lands of the estate for $3,401.00, and he has never paid for the same to the administrator or either of them. Also, Shipp, in obtaining the interest of some of the heirs, made false and fraudulent representations, that the whole of the estate was lost by the results of the war, and they, relying upon these statements, and being ignorant of the facts, sacrificed their interests by selling to him.

Shipp, in his answer to the amended bill, replied that there were losses to said estate from the war, and denied making fraudulent or false representations to obtain the transfers of complainants' interest.

Upon the trial complainants introduced in evidence the answer of Raiford, which set forth his appointment as administrator de bonis non; a settlement with Shipp as security on Bonnell's bond, and his full accounting with the estate for all sums collected by him. They also swore Raiford as a witness, who testified of his full settlement with Shipp, and of his full administration of all assets in his hands, as appeared by his returns, and also of Shipp's purchase of the interest of some of the heirs.

The testimony of some of the complainants was also read, testifying that they had received nothing from the estatesince the war, and denying they had sold their interests, etc.

Mrs. Bonnell denies the $400.00 charged to her came from the estate, but was for land sold by her husband to Shipp. That Shipp alone managed the estate after her husband went to the war.

Horn and Thompson, who married two of the complainants, testified Shipp represented the estate was worth but little or nothing by the results of the war, and they were thus induced to transfer their interest to him.

Copies of inventories and appraisement, sale bills and returns of the estate were also offered in evidence by complainants.

Defendant, Shipp, pleaded by way of defence, the purchase of...