Hunter v. Crook

• Decision Date: 26 October 1908
• Docket Number: 13,521
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ELIZABETH HUNTER v. WILLIAM H. CROOK, EXECUTOR

47 So. 430

93 Miss. 812

ELIZABETH HUNTER v. WILLIAM H. CROOK, EXECUTOR

No. 13,521

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 26, 1908

FROM the chancery court of Washington county, HON. PERCY BELL Chancellor.

Mrs Hunter, appellant, excepted to the accounts of Crook appellee, executor of the last will of Jesse A. Crook deceased, claiming that she was entitled under the will of decedent to certain horses, for which the executor had not accounted to her. The exception was disallowed and the good woman appealed to the supreme court.

The facts of the case are sufficiently apparent from the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

H. C. Watson, for appellant.

The title to the horses was retained in the testator until they should be paid for, and they ought to have gone to appellant under clause two of the will.

The second clause of the will should have been construed to give appellant all of the live stock which testator owned at the time of the making of the will, whether on Honey Oak plantation or not, and certainly the testator, at least, meant to give her all the horses on Honey Oak plantation, for it was evidently the purpose of the testator that she should have this particular plantation, with the live stock thereon, as then being used for operating the same.

The testator had title to the horses until the purchase money had been paid, and having the title he could bequeath them to appellant, and under that bequest the horses would go as well as the purchase money owing for them.

The character of the title to the animals in question held by testator is well defined in the following cases, to-wit: .Leflore v. Miller, 64 Miss. 1 So. 99; Burnley v. Tufts, 66 Miss. 48, 5 So. 627; Ham v. Cerniglia, 73 Miss. 290, 18 So. 577.

William Griffin, for appellee.

If the horses had been sold as appellant contends, reserving title as security for the purchase money, the reservation was simply security for the debt, and title immediately vested in the purchaser upon the payment of the purchase price, whether the same was paid by him, or some one for him. Immediately upon payment the lien of decedent ceased, and the title to the horses vested in the purchaser. Appellant could not successfully maintain a suit against the purchaser for the horses, and she has no interest in the purchase price paid to the executor under the will. Leflore v. Miller, 64 Miss. 204, 1 So. 99; Foundry Co. v. Ice Co., 72 Miss. 608, 18 So. 364; McPherson v. Acme I. Co., 70 Miss. 649, 12 So. 857.

OPINION

CALHOON, J.

Elizabeth Hunter excepted to the first annual and final account of William H. Crook, executor of the will of Jesse A. Crook, deceased, as to one matter. The will of Jesse A. Crook in its second clause reads as follows:

"I give, devise, and bequeath to Elizabeth Hunter, now residing on my Honey Oak plantation, hereinafter described, all of the mules, horses, cattle, hogs, and all other live stock now owned by me."

When he died, the testator owned absolutely and worked about six mules and four horses. In addition to these, he had sold twenty or more of the horses to tenants, either absolutely or by conditional sale. The plantation books of account showed that the tenants who had bought this stock were severally charged with the animals they received from the decedent. There is no notation in the books of any conditional sale whatever. In this litigation Elizabeth Hunter claims all balances due on these horses so sold. The executor had promptly turned over to her the six mules and four horses which the testator owned absolutely, and she had never intimated that she made any claim to the animals sold. The testator appears to have been a man of wealth. In his will in addition to the bequest in the second clause thereof, he devises, in the third clause, to her for life, with the remainder in fee, for her children, John Henry Crook, Alberta Crook, Jesse Crook, Sue James...