Cresswell v. Slack
| Decision Date | 17 December 1885 |
| Parties | CRESSWELL AND OTHERS v. SLACK AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Pottawattamie circuit court.
The orphans' court of Philadelphia county, Pennsylvania, on the twenty-third day of August, 1876, appointed an administrator of the estate of Elijah T. Slack, deceased, late of that county. On the eighth day of August, 1882, the plaintiffs filed their petition in the circuit court of Pottawattamie county, in which they alleged that the property of said estate which had been found in the state of Pennsylvania had been fully administered upon, and that certain valid claims against the estate remained unpaid; also that said Elijah T. Slack died seized of certain lands in Pottawattamie and Montgomery counties; and they prayed that some suitable person be appointed to administer upon the assets of the estate in this state. Notice of this application was given to the administrator in Pennsylvania, and he filed a written statement, declining to take out letters of administration in this state, and consenting that some other person might be appointed to administer on such property of the estate as might be found in this state. The court thereupon appointed a citizen of Pottawattamie county as such administrator. Plaintiffs thereupon filed a claim against the estate for $13,470.31, which amount they alleged was due them from the estate on the final settlement of the business of a partnership in which they and said Elijah T. Slack were partners, and which was dissolved by his death. The court appointed a special administrator to examine and pass upon this claim. The auxiliary administrator, soon after his appointment, filed a petition for an order for the sale of real estate, for the payment of the debts of the estate. The widow and surviving children of the intestate were made parties to this proceeding. Other parties who, it was alleged, asserted some claim to the property were also joined. The special administrator filed an answer to the claim, denying its validity; also pleading that the right of action therein was barred by the statute of limitation; also that the claim had not been proven within 12 months after the giving of notice by the administrator of his appointment. The surviving children of the intestate answered, denying the power of the circuit court to appoint an administrator of the estate, and alleging that said appointment was not made until after the expiration of five years from the death of said Slack; also denying that there were any valid claims against the estate, or that any necessity existed for the sale of the real estate. They also averred that in 1877 a guardian of their property was appointed by the circuit court, they being minors at the time; and that said guardian was empowered and directed by the court to sell their interest in the real estate, which the administrator now asks to be empowered to sell; and that said guardian, in obedience to said order, did sell and convey said interest, being an undivided two-thirds of the property, to the other defendants, and neither they nor the guardian had any notice of the claim now asserted by the plaintiffs. The other parties allege that they purchased the property from the widow and the guardian of the minor heirs of said Slack, and that when they made this purchase they had no notice of plaintiffs' claim; that no administration of said estate had been granted in the state of Iowa, and no claim was then asserted against the property; that they paid value for it, and are innocent purchasers thereof. They also plead the same matters in defense which are set up by the children of the intestate. The claim of plaintiffs, and the application of the administrator for the order to sell the real estate, were heard together. The circuit court allowed a portion of the claim, and rejected the balance. It also denied the application of the administrator for an order for the sale of the real estate. Both parties appeal.Sapp & Pusey, and J. Lyman, for plaintiffs.
D. B. Dailey, Walter I. Smith, and Finley Burke, for defendants.
Plaintiffs allege in their claim that when the partnership of which they and the intestate were members was dissolved by his death, its business was in an unsettled state, and it was impossible to determine the exact state of the accounts, as between the partners, but that it was then known and understood that intestate was indebted to them in a large amount; and that they then filed a claim against his estate in the orphans' court in Pennsylvania for $2,501.64, and that this amount was allowed them by that court. They also allege that, upon a final settlement of the affairs of the partnership, it was ascertained that the full amount of the indebtedness to them was $13,470.31.
On the trial in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial