Browning v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 22 December 1904 |
| Citation | 186 Mo. 361,85 S.W. 518 |
| Parties | BROWNING et al. v. RICHARDSON. KING et al. v. SAME. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
2. Rev. St. 1899, § 291, provides that a public administrator shall receive the same compensation for his services as may be allowed by law to executors and administrators, unless the court, for special reasons, allows a higher compensation. Section 57 provides that, in the case of partnership estates administered by the executor or administrator of the individual estate of a deceased partner, such executor or administrator is required to keep the partnership estate separate and distinct, and to account and report in all respects therefor as a separate estate. Sections 61-67 require the administrator of the partnership estate to give bond, in addition to the bond given by him as executor or administrator of the individual estate, in a sum at least double the value of the whole copartnership estate, and to administer the same in conformity to administrations in ordinary cases, and to perform the same functions and duties, be governed by the provisions, and be subject to the same penalties, liabilities, and actions, as other administrators and their sureties. Section 223 provides that in all settlements of executors or administrators the court shall allow as full compensation for their services a commission of 5 per cent. on personal property and on the money arising from the sale of real estate, and that surviving partners, in administering, shall be allowed a commission of 3 per cent. on the deceased partner's interest for like services and trouble. Held, that under these sections a public administrator is entitled to a commission of 5 per cent. on the assets of partnership estates coming into his hands.
3. Charges in an administrator's account for "drafting inventory and appraisement" and for "drafting inventory" cannot be allowed as charges for legal advice and services.
4. On exceptions to the accounts of a public administrator in three different estates, where it appeared that the exceptors were the sole beneficiaries in the same proportion as to two of the estates, there was no prejudicial error in overruling the exceptions to the accounts merely because credits entered in favor of one of the estates in which the exceptors were interested would more properly have appeared in the settlement of the other estate, in which the exceptors were interested; the result to the exceptors being the same whether the credits were taken in the settlement of one or the other of the estates.
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Warwick Hough, Judge.
Exceptions by William C. Browning and others to the report of William C. Richardson, public administrator in charge of the estate of Browning, King & Co., and by Aurelia R. King and others to the report of the public administrator in charge of the estate of Henry W. King, deceased. From a judgment of the circuit court overruling the exceptions, the exceptors appeal. Modified.
E. S. Robert and Douglas W. Robert, for appellants. W. M. Williams, James A. & W. W. Henderson, and Rassieur & Rassieur, for respondent.
On the 14th of June, 1899, William C. Richardson, public administrator of the city of St. Louis, in charge of the estate of Browning, King & Co. filed in the probate court of said city his first annual settlement in said estate, in words and figures as follows, to wit:
1898
June. To stock of goods as per appraisement ..... $182,859 16
" fixtures, as per appraisement ........... 6,322 50
" good will, as per appraisement .......... 18,000 00
" accounts as per inventory ............... 15,435 18
" cash from sales ......................... 25,452 13
" cash from Hatch ......................... 453 77
___________
$248,522 74
Cr
1898
May 6. By paid J. W. Kennedy
Watchman ....................... 1 $ 55 00
May 6. By paid Jos. Roderman
Watchman ....................... 2 42 50
May 6. By paid Jas. A Harris,
Appraiser ...................... 3 100 00
May 6. By paid Wm. M. Tamblyn,
Appraiser ...................... 4 100 00
May 13. By paid O. W. Roderman,
Appraiser ...................... 5 100 00
May 17. By paid A. Marshall,
clerk .......................... 6 200 00
May 27. By paid notice of letters
................................ 7 6 25
May 31. By paid Wm. C.
Browning, Distributee ........... 8 108,599 76
May 31. By paid Edw. W.
Dewey, Distributee .............. 9 14,392 73
May 31. By paid Jas. A. Bingham,
Distributee .................... 10 7,977 33
May 31. By paid Jno. S.
Browning, Distributee .......... 11 6,072 84
May 31. By paid Wm. H.
Browning, Distributee .......... 12 4,751 22
May 31. By paid H. K. Browning,
Distributee .................... 13 4,751 22
May 31. By paid Francis
King, Distributee .............. 14 826 32
May 31. By paid C. E. Woodruff,
Distributee .................... 15 1,780 10
May 31. By paid H. W. King,
Adm., Distributee .............. 16 81,745 22
June 15. By paid John A. Sea,
Atty. .......................... 17 150 00
June 15. By paid Kerr &
Tittmann ....................... 18 100 00
June 15. By paid Woerner &
Woerner ........................ 19 10 00
June 15. By paid H. L. Hatch,
for appraisers at Kansas
City ........................... 20 210 00
June 15. By paid S. W. Hutchinson,
Clerk at Kansas
City ........................... 21 130 00
June 16. By paid Henderson
& Henderson, Atty. ............. 22 3,000 00
June 16. By paid W. W. Henderson,
Drafting inventory
and appraisement ............... 23 500 00
June 16. By paid Witnesses to
inventory ...................... 24 7 00
June 16. By paid Wm. C. Richardson,
expenses to Kansas
City ........................... 25 69 00
June 16. By paid W. W. Henderson,
expenses to Kansas
City ........................... 26 95 00
Aug. 9. By paid R. S. Stone,
Watchman at K. C. .............. 27 15 00
Aug. 9. By paid Surviving
partners error in cash sales 11 23
1899.
June. By paid Probate fees ...... 28 265 05
June. By paid Comm. & Aff.
as per agreem't ................ 12,432 13
_________ $248,494 90
___________
Balance ....................................... $ 27 84
And on the same day the said Richardson, public administrator, in charge of the estate of Henry W. King, deceased, filed in said court his first annual settlement in said estate, in words and figures as follows, to wit:
1898.
June. To amount received from estate of
H. W. King & Co. ...................... $ 2,407 05
" amount received from estate of
Browning, King & Co. .................. 81,745 22
__________
$84,152 27
Cr.
1898.
May. By paid notice of letters .... 1 $ 6 25
May. By paid W. W. Henderson,
drafting inventory ............... 2 50 00
May. By paid witnesses to inventory
.................................. 3 2 00
May. By paid certified copy of
will and telegram ................ 4 10 20
May 31. By paid executors and
trustees under will of H. W.
King ............................. 5 78,306 31
May 31. By paid W. B. Thompson,
atty. ............................ 6 1,500 00
May 31. By paid commissions as
per agreement .................... 4,207 61
1899.
June. By paid probate fees ........ 7 8 60
June. By paid attorney's fees,
this and final settlement ....... 8 39 50
_________ $84,130 47
__________
Balance ....................................... $ 21 80
Afterwards, on the 12th of June, 1900, the said Richardson filed his final settlement in each of said estates, accounting therein for the small balance remaining in his hands in each as per his first annual settlements; and on the 16th of June, 1900, the following exceptions were filed to his annual and final settlements in the estate of Browning, King & Co.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Poe's Estate
... ... is, whether respondent's settlement of their ... administration of the estate was correct in the particulars ... excepted to. Browning v. Richardson, 186 Mo. 361, ... 382, 85 S.W. 518 ... The ... proceedings in this cause, the parties here represented and ... ...
-
In re Mills' Estate
... ... Zeidler v. Schneider, 181 Mo.App. 279; In re ... Ford, 157 Mo.App. 141; In re Claus Estate, 147 ... S.W. 199; Ansley v. Richardson, 95 Mo.App. 332; ... State v. Hostetter, 104 S.W.2d 403. (3) The order of ... the probate court authorizing the administrator to continue ... S. 1939. Estey v ... Commerce Trust Co., 333 Mo. 977, 64 S.W.2d 608; ... Gupton v. Carr, 147 Mo.App. 105; Browning v ... Richardson, 186 Mo. 361; Roloson v. Riggs, 274 ... Mo. 522, 203 S.W. 973; In re Harr & Harr's Estate, 224 ... Mo.App. 6, 22 S.W.2d 209 ... ...
- Browning v. Richardson
-
In re Claus' Estate
...ordinary duties of an administrator and to draft the usual and ordinary papers, such as an inventory and appraisement. Browning v. Richardson, 186 Mo. 361, 85 S.W. 518. The greater part of the services of the attorney, according to his testimony, was devoted to investigating the title to th......