Ex parte Crafts

• Decision Date: 21 March 1888
• Citation: 5 S.E. 718,28 S.C. 281
• Parties: Ex parte CRAFTS. v. In re CRAFTS' ESTATE.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

5 S.E. 718

28 S.C. 281

Ex parte CRAFTS. v. In re CRAFTS' ESTATE.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 21, 1888

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Charleston county; HUDSON Judge.

Letters of administration de bonis non, etc., to the estate of William Crafts, deceased, were applied for by the appellant George I. Crafts, the heir and next of kin of the deceased, there being an administrator already appointed. Petition did not refer at all to the previous appointment nor pray for its revocation. Application refused. Petitioner appeals.

Theodore & Barker and H. E. Young, for appellant.

Smythe & Lee, for respondent.

MCGOWAN J.

William Crafts died many years ago, leaving a will which was admitted to probate in Charleston, September 21, 1820, and his son William Crafts, Jr., qualified as executor, but he died, and letters of administration de bonis non cum testamento annexo were granted to Ralph Izard Middleton on July 26 1847. Nearly 40 years after, on August 26, 1886, George I Crafts filed his petition in the probate court, stating that he was the next of kin and heir of the testator, William Crafts, who, as the survivor of W. S. Crafts, was interested in a "French Spoliation Claim;" and that to prosecute such claim it was necessary that administration should be first taken out on the estate of William Crafts; wherefore he prayed that letters de bonis non, etc., should be granted to him. The petition made no reference to Mr. Middleton or his prior letters of administration,--possibly forgotten or overlooked. At all events, there was only the usual publication to kindred and creditors, such as is required to be given in an original application for letters upon an unrepresented estate. It happened, however, that the publication came to the knowledge of Mr. Middleton, and he filed his caveat and protest against the granting of the letters, on the ground that he was the administrator of the estate, and no other appointment could be made. The matter coming on to be heard, counsel for G. I. Crafts moved orally for a decree that the letters of administration granted to R.I. Middleton be revoked, and that the petition of G. I. Crafts for administration be granted. Counsel for Middleton objected to the matter being heard and determined in the manner proposed, for two reasons: "(1) that no petition had been filed, or proceeding instituted, to revoke the letters of administration granted to R.I. Middleton, and that some such direct proceeding was necessary to notify the other party, and to bring the matter properly before the court; (2) that before the court can hear and determine the merits of the issue so sought to be raised, it is necessary that testimony shall be adduced, both as to the facts set forth in the petition and as to the facts necessary to enable the court to do justice to all the parties in interest before the present administration should be revoked, and new letters granted," etc. The probate judge, however, took the view that the administrator Middleton, by filing the caveat, made himself a party to the proceeding, which could be considered to be not only what it purported, an application for the appointment of the petitioner, but as incidentally involving also an application to revoke the first appointment; and that Middleton, by not denying the statement of the petition that Crafts was the next of kin of the testator, substantially admitted that fact; and, as he states in his decree: "The case being called, and nothing further being shown, I accordingly granted the letters to George I. Crafts." Upon appeal from this decree to the circuit court, the matter came before Judge HUDSON, who reversed the decree of the probate court, upon the ground that Ralph Izard Middleton, being administrator, no other administrator could be appointed, without first, under proper proceedings, having his letters duly revoked, which was not done. From this decree George I. Crafts appeals to this court upon the following grounds: "(1) That his honor, the presiding judge, erred in holding that the appeal is well taken, because it appears that Ralph Izard Middleton is, or claims to be, the administrator with the will annexed, to the estate of said testator. (2) That his honor erred in holding that no new administration can be granted by the probate court to any one, without first, under proper proceeding, having these letters duly revoked; and in holding that...