Holt S. v. Holt S.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1924
• Citation: 96 W.Va. 337
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: John A. Holt et als. v. Florence S. Holt et als.

96 W.Va. 337

John A. Holt et als.

v.Florence S. Holt et als.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted April 1, 1924.

Decided April 29, 1924.

1. Executors and Administrators Surviving Wife Charged With Rents and Profits Collected From Husband's Properties and Credited With Expenses Incurred-

Where a wife, during the time her husband is confined in a hospital for the insane, collects the rents and profits from her husband's properties, and receives money from time to time from her husband's committee, and she pays out reasonable sums for fire insurance, taxes and repairs and for expenses incurred in visits to her husband, and finally her husband dies, it is proper in settling her accounts with the administrator to charge her with the rents and profits so collected by her during her husband's life, and to credit her with the sums so paid out by her for insurance, taxes, repairs and. visits to her husband, and a reasonable amount for her current support during her husband's life. (p. 344).

2. Same Wife Not Entitled to Credit in Settlement With Hus-

band's Administrator for Sums Paid on Husband's Insurance Policy.

If, during the time her husband is so confined, the wife pays out of the rents and profits of her husband's property the premiums on a policy of insurance on her husband's life in which she is sole beneficiary, she is not entitled to credit for such sums in her account with the administrator. They are not part of her cur'rent support for which she is entitled to credit. (p. 345).

3. Same Administrator May Expend Reasonable Amount for

Monument, But Not For Markers at Graves of Other MemVers of Decedents Family.

In administering the estate of the decedent the administrator may properly pay out of the personal estate in his hands a reasonable amount for a monument erected at the grave of decedent, but not for markers at the graves of other members of the decedent's family. (p. 346).

4. Interest Computable Only From Date Principal Becomes

Due Where Contract Does not Otherwise Provide.

Where a contract to pay money does not provide for the payment of interest, interest is computed only from the date the principal becomes due and payable. (p. 347).

5. Limitation oF Actions Limitations Do Not Run Against

Wife's Claim Against Husband During Coverture.

A wife's claim against her husband's estate for money due on a written contract executed by him in her favor is cognizable only in equity during the coverture while they are living together; therefore, during such period the statute ot limitations, section 6, chapter 104, Code, does not run against her claim, (p. 347).

6. Executors and Administrators Wife Entitled to Possession

of Mansion House Before Assignment of Dower. After the death of her husband and prior to assignment of dower, a widow is entitled to hold, occupy and enjoy the mansion-house, either by actual occupancy or by renting it to others. If, during such period, the administrator of the deceased husband's estate rents the mansion-house, the widow, in an accounting with him is entitled to receive the rents therefrom, without deduction of taxes or charges for fire insurance upon the mansion-house which have been paid by him; but he may deduct from the rents so collected a reasonable sum necessarily expended by him to keep the premises in repair. (p. 349).

McGinnis, Judge, absent.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Taylor County.

Action by John A. Holt and others against Florence S. Holt and others, in which the named defendant filed a crossbill. From the judgment rendered, plaintiffs appeal, and named defendant cross-appeals.

Reversed in part. Affirmed in part. Remanded.

W. Merle Wathins, for plaintiffs. Harry Friedman, for defendant.

Meredith, President:

By plaintiff's assignments of error and defendant Florence S. Holt's cross-assignments, parties to the suit complain of the decree of the circuit court of Taylor County.

The original bill filed at December Rules, 1920, had for its object the sale of the real estate of which James W. Holt, late of Grafton, died seized. His heirs at law, who brought the suit, alleged that the real estate was not susceptible of partition in kind, wherefore they prayed that it be sold, and the proceeds divided between them and Florence S. Holt, the widow of the decedent. The widow and one infant heir at law of James W. Holt were made parties defendant, but as the widow is the real party whose interests are opposed by the plaintiffs, we shall, when using the word "defendant'' have reference to her only. At January Rules, 1921, plaintiffs filed an amended and supplemental bill in which the chief allegation was that by deed dated October 9, 1913, James W. Holt conveyed to Florence S. Holt part of Lot 84 of the Luzador Addition to the town of Grafton, being part of the real estate described in the original bill; but that after the death of decedent the plaintiffs had threatened to bring suit to set aside that conveyance on account of the alleged mental incompetency of the grantor, he having been committed to the State Hospital for the Insane in 1915, and that thereupon, by deed dated January 25, 1918, said Florence S. Holt conveyed the said lot to Alfred A. Holt, administrator of James W. Holt, deceased, reserving to herself her right of dower therein; wherefore said Alfred A. Holt, administrator, holds the lot in trust for the heirs of James W. Holt, subject to the dower of defendant. They prayed for the same relief asked for in the original bill, and for further general relief. The deeds referred to were exhibited with the bill.

On February 16, 1921, defendant filed in open court her answer and cross-bill. She admits the existence of the heirs at law named in the bill, also the execution of the deeds exhibited; she denies the incompetency of her husband at the time the deed to her was made, and avers that the reconveyance by her to Alfred A. Holt, Administrator, was effected by the insistence of one of her step-sons, at a time so shortly after the death of her husband that she was not in proper mental condition to transact business. She points out that the reconveyance shows that without any valuable consideration moving to her, except one share of stock in the Farmers' State Bank of Gage, Oklahoma, worth $125.00, she agreed to part, not only with part of Lot 84, reasonably worth $3000.00, but also with ten shares of stock in the Grafton Banking and Trust Company, worth $1625.00, and ten shares of Wheeling Steel and Iron Company stock, worth $1865.00. She charges that because of her mental condition, and her misplaced confidence in her step-son, her deed of reconveyance should be set aside. She alleges that the part of Lot 84 conveyed was. the home and mansion house of her husband, and that until her dower is assigned she is entitled to the rents and profits therefrom, but that Alfred A. Holt, Administrator, has taken possession of said home and has been collecting said rents and profits.

She refers to the appraisement of the personal estate; also to the administrator's settlement of accounts, showing, among other matters, certain personal property sold by the administrator, and the proceeds charged to him as follows:

10 shares of stock in Grafton Banking and

Trust Company......................... $1625.00

10 shares of stock in Wheeling Steel and Iron

Company.............................. 1896.00

The Administrator is allowed cred it as follows: By 12 shares Wheeling Steel and Iron Company................................ $1896.00

By lot in City of New York............... 750.00

$2646.00

The twenty shares of stock charged to the administrator are the same shares conveyed to him by defendant, and she alleges that neither the stock nor the $750 lot were proper charges or credits to the administrator, as they were and are her own property. She alleges further that at the date of his death James W. Holt was indebted to her upon two notes, one for $250.00, dated November 2, 1906; the other for $109.00, dated August 29, 1907; both with interest from their respective dates, and she charges that, though their genuineness had been admitted by the administrator, and her step-son, Howard H. Holt, they were returned to her by the administrator with the information that they were "outlawed." She prays that her conveyance to the administrator be set aside; that the ex parte settlement of the administrator in which the 20 shares of stock were treated as property of the estate be falsified; that the debts against the estate of James W. Holt be ascertained; that the administrator 's accounts be settled; and that her dower in both the real and personal estate be ascertained and paid in money. She files as exhibits copies of the appraisement and administrator's settlement, and a copy of her agreement of reconveyance, dated January 19, 1918. The exhibits contain many items, including the charge and credit of the stocks to the administrator, and other matters, some of which are to be discussed.

Plaintiffs replied to the answer and cross-bill by a pleading termed by them a demurrer, general replication and answer. They modified their original allegation as to the manner of James W. Holt's commitment to the State Hospital for the Insane so as to show that he was adjudged insane by a justice of the peace April 6, 1915, and was thereafter committed to the hospital. They point out the disparity in ages between defendant Florence S. Holt and her deceased husband; they emphasize defendant's domination of her hubsand by reason of her superior mental and physical faculties, and her ultimate success in persuading him to convey to her the home property, part of lot 84; they allege that the settlement of the controversy over the competency of her husband at the time he executed the deed was sufficient consideration for her reconveyance; they allege that at the date of decedent's death the house was not the mansion house, that it was not occupied by defendant Florence S. Holt, that on the contrary, it...