Henshaw v. Gunter
| Decision Date | 23 November 1935 |
| Citation | 87 S.W.2d 561 |
| Parties | HENSHAW v. GUNTER et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
John Jennings, Jr., of Knoxville, for appellants.
D. S. Beeler, of Rutledge, for appellee.
The bill herein was filed in the chancery court of Grainger county by Carl T. Henshaw, in his individual capacity and as administrator of the estate of James H. Henshaw, deceased, against the heirs at law and distributees of said deceased.
The bill charges that said James H. Henshaw, some few days before his death, while in his last illness and convinced that he would shortly die, made a gift to complainant of two promissory notes, executed by third parties, aggregating $550, and 27 shares of preferred stock of Cities Service Company, without par value, and delivered the same to him. It is further charged by complainant that after his appointment as administrator of the estate of said deceased, and before he had employed an attorney, he went before the county court clerk and county judge of Grainger county for the purpose of filing an inventory of the personal assets of the estate, and fully explained to the county judge the facts relative to the gift to him of said notes and stock by the deceased. Complainant charges he was advised by the county judge that he should include the notes and stock in his inventory, which he did, under the representation of the county judge that his rights with respect thereto would be fully protected, in the administration of said estate, by such orders and decrees as might thereafter be made. It is further charged that complainant relied upon the advice of the county judge, and was thereby induced to erroneously and mistakenly include his shares of stock and notes, given him by the deceased, in the inventory filed by him in the office of the county court clerk.
The bill further charges that thereafter complainant presented to the county court clerk his report as administrator of said estate, which was final in its nature, and that in said report he did not charge himself with said notes and stock. That, thereupon, certain of the heirs at law and distributees of said deceased, present in person, without filing any written exception to said report, insisted that complainant was not entitled to the notes and stock in question; that the county judge heard the matter and decreed that the deceased did not make a gift of said notes and stock to complainant, and he ordered that complainant account for the value of the same; that to this order and decree of the court complainant duly excepted, and prayed and was granted an appeal to the circuit court, where the matters involved are pending for trial.
Complainant avers in his bill herein that upon a trial of said matters he would be embarrassed in a court of law by reason of his having included in the inventory of the estate these notes and stock; that he could not have the full measure of relief to which he is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poka v. Holi
...re Hamilton's Estate, 182 Wash. 81, 45 P.2d 36; In re Galletto's Estate, 1st Dist., 75 Cal.App.2d 580, 171 P.2d 152; cf. Henshaw v. Gunter, 169 Tenn. 305, 87 S.W.2d 561. As above noted, William's possession prior to Alice's death was of a doubtful character. His taking out of letters of adm......
-
Shelter Ins. Companies v. Hann
...Circuit Court a matter of equitable cognizance. Rectifying a mistake is the peculiar province of a court of equity. Henshaw v. Gunter, 169 Tenn. 305, 87 S.W.2d 561 (1935); Reid v. House, 21 Tenn. (2 Humph.) 576 (1841); Helm v. Wright, 21 Tenn. (2 Humph) 72 (1840). In the absence of objectio......
-
Southern Housing Co. v. Morton
...fraud or mistake. 1 Am.Jur. 285; 1 C.J.S., Account Stated, § 43, pp. 724, 725; State ex rel. Stewart v. Follis, supra; Henshaw v. Gunter, 169 Tenn. 305, 87 S.W.2d 561. Under these principles it seems clear that the complainant was entitled to no relief unless it were first given leave to su......
-
In re Love's Estate
...and settlements were conclusive, which the court answered in the negative, as did this court in the later case of Henshaw v. Gunter, 169 Tenn. 305, 87 S.W.2d 561. Where an administrator purposely charges himself with a note in his inventory and in his settlement he is conclusively bound the......