Bellinger v. Lehman, Durr & Co.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1894
• Citation: 15 So. 600,103 Ala. 385
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: BELLINGER v. LEHMAN, DURR & CO.

15 So. 600

103 Ala. 385

BELLINGER v. LEHMAN, DURR & CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 17, 1894

Appeal from chancery court, Montgomery county; John A. Foster Chancellor.

Action by Lehman, Durr & Co. against Robert H. Bellinger administrator. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Arrington & Graham and John W. A. Sandford, Jr., for appellant.

Tompkins & Gray, for appellee.

HEAD J.

In 1883 Moses T. Ray and W. C. Ray were partners in a farming business. In February of that year Moses T. Ray executed to Lehman, Durr & Co. a mortgage to secure a debt of $2,000 which had the effect to pass to them his interest in the partnership crops to be grown that year, to be ascertained upon a settlement of the partnership. After the crops had been commenced, to wit, in March 1883, Moses T. Ray died, and on April 4th thereafter William Bellinger was appointed his administrator. The partnership rights and interests thus devolved on W. C. Ray, as surviving partner, for the purposes of completion of the crops, and liquidation and final settlement. Instead of making formal settlement with W. C Ray, Bellinger, as administrator, agreed to accept from him $500 for his intestate's interest in the crops, and that sum was paid to him by W. C. Ray, the surviving partner therefor. Lehman, Durr & Co. had other security for said debt, viz. a pledge of certain capital stock of the Merchants' & Planters' National Bank; and, on September 22, 1884, they filed this bill to enforce and foreclose that pledge, as well as their mortgage on the crops. In the progress of the cause, they realized upon the pledge, by sale of the stock, under a decree of the court, leaving only the crops a subject of contest. Pending the cause, William Bellinger died, and Robert H. Bellinger, the appellant, was appointed his administrator, and, as such, was brought in as a party defendant. By an amendment of the bill, the complainants elected to claim the $500, which the surviving partner had paid William Bellinger for his intestate's interest in the crops, instead of demanding a formal settlement of the partnership and claiming what might be developed to be due them thereon; and, on final hearing, the chancellor rendered a personal decree in their favor for the same against Robert H. Bellinger, as administrator of William Bellinger, deceased. That decree is the matter assigned as error. The contention of appellant is that the sale by William Bellinger to W. C. Ray of his intestate's...