Hutchinson's Estate v. Arnt
| Decision Date | 01 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | 26651. |
| Citation | 1 N.E.2d 585,210 Ind. 509 |
| Parties | HUTCHINSON'S ESTATE et al. v. ARNT et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Reversed with instructions.
Appeal from Superior Court, La Porte County; Wm. P Pentecost, special judge.
Hickey & Dilworth, of La Porte, for appellants.
Walter Arnold, of South Bend, for appellees.
William B. Hutchinson, Sr., died testate in December, 1908. He was survived by his widow, Emma Hutchinson, a second wife, and three children, Amy Hutchinson Arnt and Grace Hutchinson Hitchcock, daughters by his first wife, and William B. Hutchinson, a son by Emma Hutchinson. By his will be bequeathed $10,000 each to his three children; $2,000 each to his grandsons, and $1,000 each to his granddaughters, who were living or who might thereafter be born, to be paid when such grandchildren had attained the age of 18 years. Provision was made for the disposition of his estate in case his wife, Emma Hutchinson, preceded him in death, and that his life insurance be paid to the members of the family who were named beneficiaries in the several policies, and that the amounts payable on the policies in which his first wife was made beneficiary be equally divided between his daughters, in addition to the specific bequests to them in the will. The only provision having reference to his wife, or making any distribution of the residue of his estate, in the event she survived him, is as follows: His wife, Emma Hutchinson, was nominated as executrix, and was appointed and qualified as such, and entered upon the administration of the estate. No inventory or appraisement was filed in the estate, but a record set up on the books of the estate by Charles E. Arnt, the husband of Amy Hutchinson Arnt, showed personal property amounting to $129,041.14, including $20,000 of bank stock, which has been eliminated from consideration here, and $15,000 of corporate stock, which was afterwards written off and which is not involved in this litigation, leaving a net inventory on the books of the estate of $94,041.14. He left real estate of the value of $6,760, which was sold by the widow. On January 16, 1911, the executrix filed in the court where the estate was pending her final report and petition, reciting complete administration of the estate, except only the payment of legacies to minor grandchildren, and these have since been paid. At the time the report was filed all of the children joined in a written request that the final report and petition be approved. Notice of the final report was published, and, on April 15, 1911, the court made its order in which the final report is approved, and it is found that all things necessary in the administration of the estate have been done, and that all of the provisions of the will have been carried out and complied with, and the estate fully administered, except as to the legacies payable to grandchildren, and it was ordered that the estate ‘ be and the same hereby is ordered stricken from the docket the same to be reinstated on motion of any person interested upon such notice, if any, as court shall then determine shall be given.’
When the will was probated, Charles E. Arnt, who was president of the bank in which William B. Hutchinson, Sr., had an account, caused the account to be changed from the name of William B. Hutchinson, Sr., to William B. Hutchinson Estate. When she was appointed executrix, Emma Hutchinson went into possession of all of the personal estate, and all moneys were deposited in the estate account. In this account also was deposited $23,735.29 of the personal funds of Emma Hutchinson, the proceeds of a life insurance policy, and $7,650, the proceeds of the sale of real estate which belonged to her individually. After the filing of her final report this account was continued, and all of her personal funds, and all funds derived from the personal estate of William B. Hutchinson, Sr., were deposited therein until her death twenty-five years later. Checks signed by her as ‘ Emma Hutchinson’ were cashed by the bank and charged to this account. After the final report was approved she continued in possession of all of the personal estate of William B. Hutchinson, Sr., which had not been expended for the purposes of the estate; and all of the intangibles which came into her possession as executrix were disposed of and reduced to cash prior to her death. She died in July, 1933, and William B. Hutchinson and Gerritt S. Van Deusen were appointed administrators of her estate.
After the death of Emma Hutchinson, Amy Arnt was appointed and qualified as administratrix de bonis non with the will annexed of the estate of William B. Hutchinson, Sr., and initiated this action by filing a claim and petition as administratrix of the estate of William B. Hutchinson, Sr., and for that estate, against the estate of Emma Hutchinson, claiming $131,000 on account of alleged conversion by Emma Hutchinson, as life tenant under the will of William B. Hutchinson, Sr., of personal property which he owned at the time of his death. The petition also asked for certain described chattels in the possession of Emma Hutchinson at the time of her death.
After rulings upon many pleadings, concerning which errors are assigned, the cause was at issue. There was a trial, the facts were found specially, the court rendered conclusions of law, and there was judgment against the estate of Emma Hutchinson for $75,718.10, and for the surrender of all of the chattels which were in her home at the time of her death.
Appellants, in numerous ways, save the question as to the right of the estate of William B. Hutchinson, Sr., and the administratrix to maintain this action. Appellees assert that the estate was not closed, since, by the terms of the order approving the final report, it was provided that the estate might be reinstated upon the motion of any person interested, upon notice. But the final report was approved after notice. It showed that all debts, liabilities, and bequests had been paid, except those to certain grandchildren, which were afterwards paid. If the part of the judgment providing for the reinstatement of the estate on the court docket had not been made, it might have been reopened and reinstated upon the docket, upon the motion of any person in interest, upon notice and the showing of a necessity for having it reopened, so that part of the order is mere surplusage. It is also asserted, upon the authority of Brannock v. Stocker, Adm'r (1881) 76 Ind. 558, and other cases, that the legatee for life is not entitled to the personal assets, but that the same shall be invested under the direction of the court, and the interest or income paid to the legatee for life. See Koons, Adm'r, v. Manifold et al. (1901) 27 Ind.App. 643, 62 N.E. 116, and cases there cited. That, since it was the duty of the executrix to hold and invest the personal estate, she must be presumed to have done so, and that she is answerable as executrix, and that therefore an action against her should be in the name of the estate or the administering officer succeeding her. But, in Brannock v. Stocker, Adm'r, supra, the will provided: ‘ I give and bequeath to my beloved wife * * * all my property, both real and personal, during her natural life.’ The provision under consideration here is: ‘ The residue of my estate shall go to my wife * * * to have and to hold the same for her use and benefit.’ ‘ To have and to hold’ implies custody and possession. Scott et al. v. Scott (1908) 137 Iowa 239, 114 N.W. 881, 23 L.R.A. 137 Iowa 239, 114 N.W. 881, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 716, 126 Am.St.Rep. 277, and cases.
Emma Hutchinson took possession of the residue of the personal estate and held it in her own name. It is true that her account in the bank, of which her stepson-in-law was president, was continued in the name of the estate, but she wrote checks against the account in her own name. She transferred securities, and had them reissued in her own name, and held and dealt with all of the personal estate, not as executrix, but in her individual capacity. Her responsibility for the preservation of the principal of the personal estate, if any, was to the remaindermen, and not to the estate of her husband. Any right of action for conversion is in the remaindermen. They are the real persons in interest. Appellants brought these remaindermen into the case by cross-complaint.
The principal question presented by the errors assigned involves a construction of clause 4 of the will of William B. Hutchinson, Sr. The court below adopted appellees' theory, as indicated by its second conclusion of law, which is as follows: ‘ That Emma Hutchinson, during her lifetime, subsequent to the death of William B. Hutchinson, Sr., deceased, was, under the last will and testament of said William B. Hutchinson, Sr., entitled only to receive the income from all of the property of which said testator died seized-real and personal-with power to make conveyances of any and all real estate of which the testator died seized.’
Appellants contend, first, that the will vested in the widow absolute title to the personal property...
To continue reading
Request your trial