Criddle's Adm'r v. Criddle

• Decision Date: 31 October 1855
• Citation: Criddle's Adm'r v. Criddle, 21 Mo. 522 (Mo. 1855)
• Parties: CRIDDLE'S ADMINISTRATOR, Appellant, v. CRIDDLE, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

21 Mo. 522

CRIDDLE'S ADMINISTRATOR, Appellant,

v.CRIDDLE, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1855.

1. Under the 5th section of the act concerning fraudulent conveyances, (R. C. 1845,) the administrator of a party who has been in possession of personal property five years under a loan, cannot, as representing creditors of his intestate, impeach the title of the lender.

2. The declarations of a party in possession of personal property against his title are admissible; but declarations by him on other occasions, in support of his title, are not admissible even in rebuttal.

Appeal from Cape Girardeau Circuit Court.

This was an action brought by the administrator of William S. Criddle, to recover the value of a female slave, alleged to have belonged to the estate of his intestate, and to have been converted by the defendant.

At the trial before a jury, it appeared in evidence that the slave originally belonged to the defendant, the father of the plaintiff's intestate, but had been in possession of the plaintiff's intestate more than five years before his death. The plaintiff offered to prove the declarations of his intestate while in possession of the slave as to his right to her, but the evidence was excluded, and an exception taken. The defendant introduced evidence of declarations by the plaintiff's intestate, while in possession of the slave, that she did not belong to him, but to his father. Some of these declarations were made at a time when the intestate was threatened with law suits.

Among other instructions given for the defendant, about which no question is here made, was the following, to which the plaintiff excepted:

“5. The administrator of William S. Criddle, in this case, does not represent the creditors of William S. Criddle. He only represents the personal interest of Wm. S. Criddle.”

There was a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff afterwards appealed.

J. W. Noell, for appellant.

1. The 5th instruction was erroneous. The administrator is trustee for the creditors as well as heirs, and as such can recover for the benefit of creditors property to which his intestate had claimed a title by possession under the 5th section of the act concerning fraudulent conveyances. (R. C. 1845.) 2. The declarations of Wm. S. Criddle, as to his right to the slave, should have been admitted, especially as other declarations made by him against his right, apparently with a view to keep off creditors, were admitted when offered by the...