Huff v. Thrash

• Decision Date: 26 July 1881
• Citation: 75 Va. 546
• Parties: HUFF v. THRASH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

75 Va. 546

HUFF v. THRASH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

July 26, 1881

Absent, Moncure, P.

1. Where there are two administrators, their relations inter se are fiduciary and they may be held to account, each by the other, in a court of equity touching transactions between themselves connected with the administration of the trust. This equitable jurisdiction extends to cases of account between tenants in common, joint tenants, partners and by analogy between executors and administrators, who have a joint and entire interest in the effects of the testator or intestate.

2. In all cases in which an action of account would be the proper remedy at law, and in all cases where a trustee is a party the jurisdiction of a court of equity is undoubted.

3. If in the settlement of a joint administration, one executor or administrator gets credit with the estate for what another is entitled to receive, what he gets or is allowed him he holds as trustee for the latter, and may in equity be required to account for it.

4. To support the objection of multifariousness, because the bill contains different causes of suit against the same person two things must concur: first, the different grounds of suit must be wholly distinct; secondly, each ground must be sufficient as stated to sustain a bill.

Robert Huff, administrator of George Kefauver, deceased, filed his bill in the circuit court of Floyd county at October rules, 1880, against Valentine Thrash, in his own right and as administrator of Peter Guerrant, deceased, for an account of all transactions between himself and George Kefauver in the joint administration of Peter Guerrant's estate, and also of all transactions growing out of said administration had with Huff the plaintiff, as administrator of Kefauver's estate. To this bill the defendant demurred; the demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed; whereupon an appeal was obtained from a judge of this court.

R. E. Penn, for the appellant.

A. H. Phlegar, for the appellee.

OPINION

BURKS, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Floyd county, dismissing the appellant's bill on demurrer. The only question therefore is, whether the bill is sufficient.

After it was amended by striking out so much as related to the alleged payment by Kefauver to Hartman for certain bonds on Dewes, it stood simply as a bill by the personal representative of one administrator against the surviving co-administrator for an account and settlement of the transactions of the two inter se growing out of the joint administration of the estate, and for a personal decree against the defendant for any value ascertained to be owing by him on such accounting and settlement.

There can be no doubt of the jurisdiction of a court of equity in such a case. The relation of the administrators, not only to the estate they had to administer and the parties entitled to it, but also to each other, was fiduciary in its character. They occupied a position of trust and confidence, and in all such cases trustees may be held, each by the other, to account in a court of equity touching transactions between themselves connected with the administration of the trust. The jurisdiction extends to cases of account between tenants in common, between joint-tenants, partners, and, by analogy, between executors and administrators, who have a joint and entire interest in the effects of the testator or intestate. 1 Story's Eq. § 466; 1 Lomax Executors, 358 (marg. p.).

Speaking of matters of account, Chief Justice Marshall, in Fowle v. Lawrason, 5 Peters 495, remarked, that " in all cases in which an action of account would be the proper remedy at law, and in all cases where a trustee is a party, the jurisdiction of a court of equity is undoubted. It is the appropriate tribunal." It is upon the principle of trust mainly, that equity takes jurisdiction at the instance of the principal to compel his agent to account. Simmons v. Simmons' Adm'r, 33 Gratt. 451, 455-6; Zetelle v. Myers, 19 Gratt. 62; Coffman v. Sangster, 21 Gratt. 263; Thornton v. Thornton, 31 Gratt. 212. And if in the settlement of a joint administration, one executor or administrator gets credit with the estate for what another is entitled to receive, what he gets or is allowed him he holds as trustee for the latter and may in equity be required to account for it.

In this view, manifestly the bill as amended is free from any...