Charles v. Daniels

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: HOBSON, J.
• Citation: Charles v. Daniels, 140 Ky. 379, 131 S.W. 42 (Ky. Ct. App. 1910)
• Decision Date: 21 October 1910
• Parties: CHARLES et al. v. DANIELS et al.

131 S.W. 42

140 Ky. 379

CHARLES et al. v. DANIELS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 21, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County.

Action by America Charles and others against Mary Daniels and others. From a judgment in part for plaintiffs, they appealed, and the defendant named filed a cross-appeal. Reversed and remanded on original appeal, and affirmed on cross-appeal.

Cassius M. Whitt and P. B. Stratton, for appellants.

J. S Cline and Butler & Moore, for appellees.

HOBSON J.

William Daniels died in the spring of the year 1900, leaving surviving him his widow, Mary Daniels, and 13 children. He owned at his death a tract of 800 acres of land. The widow Mary Daniels, on April 25, 1900, qualified as administratrix of his estate and as guardian of the infant children; the majority of the children being then infants. In the fall of that year Nancy Charles, one of the daughters, and John Charles, her husband, filed a suit in the Pike circuit court for the division of the land between the children, and in that case at the January term, 1901, a judgment was entered directing the land to be divided and appointing commissioners for that purpose. Before the judgment was executed on October 5, 1901, Mary Daniels, as administratrix, brought a suit to settle the estate, alleging that there was no personal property, and that a sale of the land would be necessary to pay the debts. On the same day she also filed an action to set aside the judgment in the partition suit on the ground that it had been entered prematurely. In the suit to settle the estate of the decedent, an order was entered for the creditors to prove up their claims before the commissioner. The commissioner took proof and filed a report showing the debts against the estate, and at the October term, 1902, the commissioner's report having been confirmed, a judgment was entered for a sale of the land, or so much of it as was necessary for the payment of the debts. The sale was made and at the sale Mary Daniels bought the property for $1,780.69, the amount directed by the judgment to be made. The sale was reported to the court and confirmed on February 6, 1903. After the sale had been confirmed, a controversy arose between Vicy Daniels, one of the daughters, and her mother, Vicy claiming that her mother had assigned to her her bid for the land. On February 18, 1904, a deed was made to the mother, and the daughter then brought a suit to set aside the deed. This case progressed to a final hearing. The circuit court dismissed the daughter's petition. The daughter appealed to this court. On the appeal this court adjudged the daughter a lien for a sum of money which she had paid her mother, but refused to disturb the deed which was made to the mother. Soon after this litigation was concluded the present action was brought on September 7, 1907, by Nancy Charles and ten of the other children against their mother and the other two children, setting up the facts above stated. They alleged that there were in truth no debts against the estate, and that the suit brought by their mother to settle the estate was a result of a fraudulent combination between her and the two sons who were joined with her as defendants to procure a sale of the land so that the mother might buy it in; that a number of the children were infants living with their mother, and the process was not served on them; that the mother had paid for the land out of the money of the estate which she had in her hands as administratrix and as guardian, and that at the time of her purchase of the land she was both administratrix and guardian of the infant children, and, having bought the land in the suit brought by her as such administratrix, her purchase made her a trustee for the children; and that she so held the land under her purchase as trustee for them. The allegations of the petition were controverted by an answer. The issues were made up and proof was taken. ...