Cureton v. Mills
| Decision Date | 24 April 1880 |
| Docket Number | CASE 865. |
| Parties | CURETON v. MILLS. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
1. Where the administrators, in this state, of an intestate whose domicil was here, also administered in North Carolina and brought personal property there found into this state and sold it, they must account here for the proceeds of such sale.
2. The rights and liabilities of original and ancillary administrators, and their relation to each other, in such case, determined, and cases reviewed.
3. Such assets must be accounted for and distributed in this state as it regards North Carolina debts, according to the laws of the state of North Carolina.
4. An aggregate of expenditure for a calendar year will not be allowed administrators on their accounts, in the absence of evidence showing that the items were proper credits.
5. This court will not notice a ground of appeal based upon a confirmation by the Circuit decree of the referee's report in a particular to which no exception had been taken.
Before PRESSLEY, J., Spartanburg, June, 1879.
This was a bill filed in the court of equity for Spartanburg county, in May, 1868, by Thomas K. Cureton and Nancy R. Mills, as administrators of Govan Mills, and Mary S. Cureton against R. H. Mills, J. C. Mills, J. B. Davis and William Ballenger, for a settlement of the estate of Govan Mills, who died intestate in 1862, in South Carolina, in which state he was domiciled. The administrators here were also administrators in North Carolina. Nancy R. Mills was the widow, and R. H. Mills, J. C. Mills and M. S. Cureton were the children of intestate. Davis and Ballenger were creditors, citizens of this state. They answering demanded an accounting, and all creditors were called in to establish their demands. R. H. Mills, J. C. Mills and Nancy R. Mills died before the hearing in the Circuit Court.
Govan Mills owned lands and personal property in both North Carolina and South Carolina. Negroes and other personalty were appraised on the North Carolina plantation, under the order of the Ordinary of Spartanburg district, by South Carolina appraisers. This property was then brought into this state and sold.
F. M. Trimmier, Esq., clerk of court, to whom it was referred as referee to state the accounts, found, as a matter of fact, that there were creditors in both states; that the administrators had not kept separate accounts of their two administrations; that they had sold in this state personal property brought here from North Carolina to the amount of $20,803.28. As a matter of law, the referee gave the administrators credit for this sum, as not chargeable against them in this state; and refused them credit for payments made to creditors residing in North Carolina. In the statement accompanying his report, no credit was allowed the administrators for two items, proven by the attorney for the administrators in words following:
Since the last return, to wit, in 1871, the administrators received $253, and amounts paid out $325. Also, from 1862 to 1866 the administrator paid to witness, as attorney's fees and for collections and expenses, $1217.25 in confederate money.
To the report of the referee the plaintiff filed the following exceptions:
3. Because the referee, in the accounting, failed to allow a credit of $325, paid out in 1871.
5. For that referee reported that none of the payments of claims belonging to residents of North Carolina are proper credits in the accounting here of the administrators.
6. For that referee failed to report that the estate in South Carolina had been fully administered.
And the creditors of the estate filed the following exceptions to this report:
1. That the referee allowed the administrators credit for the sum of $20,803.28, the amount of sales of personal property sold in South Carolina under the order of the Court of Ordinary for Spartanburg county, South Carolina, as assets belonging to the administration in North Carolina.
2. That the referee failed to charge the administrators with the surplus of the estate after administration in North Carolina.
The Circuit decree is as follows:
The domicil of the intestate, Govan Mills, was in this state, but he owned property also in North Carolina, and plaintiffs are his administrators in both states.
Some of his slaves, which, at the time of his death, were on his plantation in North Carolina, were brought by plaintiffs into this state, where they were appraised and sold by order of the Ordinary of Spartanburg in 1862. From that time until this suit, the assets of intestate in both states were administered in the payment of debts, without regard to the residence of the creditors; some debts in each state remain unpaid and the assets are insufficient to pay all.
Plaintiffs now claim that the proceeds of the slaves which were in North Carolina when intestate died, should be omitted from the account in this state, and the referee sustains that claim. He also refuses to allow plaintiffs credit on their accounts here for their payments to creditors residing in North Carolina.
To these and other rulings of the referee both sides have filed exceptions which I will not notice in detail, because I prefer to re-commit the case for further inquiry and report according to the following rulings, to wit:
1. I hold that the proceeds of said slaves are assets in this state, it being the domicil of the intestate, and the property having been appraised and sold here by legal authority. Collins v. Bankhead , 1 Strob. 25; Wilkins v. Ellett , 9 Wall. 740.
2. That this estate being insolvent, all its assets in both states are to be applied so as to equalize all the creditors according to their legal priorities, but with due regard to the priority law of each state as to the assets within its limits. Dawes v. Head , 3 Pick. 128; Tucker v. Condy , 10 Rich. Eq. 12.
3. That the payments to North Carolina creditors are to be charged to the assets in that state, and if the same be insufficient to equalize the creditors there with those in this state, they are to be made equal out of the assets here, and a like equalization is to be sought in North Carolina by creditors residing in this state if the assets here are not sufficient for that purpose.
4. In taking the accounts of defendants, all confederate money received and not heretofore paid out by them, is to be reduced to its value according to our statute.
It is ordered and adjudged that the rulings above-stated stand as my judgment and decree, that the case be re-committed to referee to take and report a full account of the assets and debts in each state, and what amounts are yet due in each by the defendants and to what debts, according to priority, the balance in this state, if any, should be applied; that he also report what amount, if any, of the assets in this state, should be paid to creditors, and what creditors, in North Carolina, in order to equalize them according to the rank of their debts with like creditors in this state.
From this decree T. K. Cureton appealed to this court.
Mr. J. S. R. Thomson , for appellant.
Appeal lies- Code , § 11; 15 Stat. 495; Voorh. Code , 349; 4 S. C. 115. The case in 8 S. C. 112, is not in point. Credits should have been allowed for the $325.90, and the $1217.15; they were doubtless oversights. The proceeds of the sale of the personal property brought from North Carolina are not properly chargeable in the account of the administrators in this state. The Circuit judge errs in saying it was appraised in this state. 7 S. C. 63; 1 Rich. 116; 5 Ired. Eq. 367; 2 Bail. 438; Story on Confl. Laws , §§ 513-518, 529 b, c, d; 3 Redf. on Wills 27; Freem. on Void Jud. Sales , § 4; 2 Wms. on Ex'rs 982; 14 Rich. Eq. 105; 16 Wall. 610; 15 Pet. 6; 6 How. 59; Pend. v. Cooke, (Conn. 1877,) 6 Reporter 518; Rorer on Inter-State Laws 251. Payments to the North Carolina creditors are proper credits in the appellant's administration account here. 11 N. H. 95; 45 Iowa 221; 2 Kent 434; 10 Rich. Eq. 16; 44 Texas 497; 3 Pick. 128; 4 McC. 28.
Mr. J. B. Cleveland , contra.
The order is not appealable. Dud. Eq. 24; 8 S. C. 112. To the authorities cited by the Circuit judge to sustain his propositions, we add the following: 2 Bail. 436; 5 Pet. 518; 45 Iowa 221; 3 Pick. 128; 1 Strob. 25; 1 Rich. 116; 10 Rich. Eq. 12; 9 Wall. 740; 7 S. C. 60; 4 McC. 28; 4 McC. 278; 1 Mills' Const. R. 292; 5 Cranch 289.
This case involves the accounting of the administrators of G Mills. The leading question arises out of the following facts: G. Mills was domiciled, at his death, in this state, and died intestate, leaving property and debts in both this state and North Carolina. T. K. Cureton and N. Mills took out letters of administration in both states. Personal property of the intestate, situated in North Carolina at his death, was reduced to possession there by the administrators and brought into this state and sold by order of the Ordinary of Spartanburg. There appear to be debts of the intestate due to citizens of both states unsatisfied, and it is claimed that as it regards North Carolina debts the North Carolina assets should be applied by the administrators in accordance with the laws of that state, and not according to the priorities existing under the laws of this state. The only appellant here is the administrator, T. K. Cureton. His principal objection to this Circuit decree is that it decreed that the proceeds of sales of slaves brought from North Carolina and sold here are chargeable to the administrator's account here, and that it directed the application of the North Carolina assets, instead of holding, " that the whole of the North Carolina property should be accounted for there, and this plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial