Hyman v. Rollins

• Decision Date: 30 January 1893
• Citation: 70 Miss. 412,12 So. 339
• Parties: SOLOMON HYMAN ET AL. v. CHARLOTTE ROLLINS, ADM'X
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

12 So. 339

70 Miss. 412

SOLOMON HYMAN ET AL. v. CHARLOTTE ROLLINS, ADM'X

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 30, 1893

October 1892

FROM the circuit court of Lincoln county, HON. J. B. CHRISMAN Judge.

Appellants Hyman Bros., brought suit in the court below against appellee, Charlotte Rollins, administratrix of the estate of Peter Rollins, her deceased husband, to enforce payment of two promissory notes executed by the deceased, one dated August 25, 1888, and the other January 18, 1889. Defendant pleaded the general issue, relying on the statute authorizing her in her representative capacity to make any defense thereunder. On the trial, May 9, 1892, plaintiffs introduced in evidence the two notes, which had been duly probated, and rested.

Thereupon the defendant, in the language of the bill of exceptions "introduced several witnesses whose evidence showed that Peter Rollins, the defendant's intestate, died August 9, 1889, and that after his death, on the 18th of May, 1891, letters of administration were granted defendant on his estate; that before letters of administration were granted defendant on the estate, the defendant, Charlotte Rollins, the widow of the decedent, and John Rollins, his son, delivered to the plaintiffs cotton of the crop of 1889, raised on the farm of said Peter Rollins, and by him grown before he died, largely more than sufficient in value to satisfy and pay the notes sued upon, and that at the time of the delivery they directed plaintiffs to appropriate the cotton to the payment of the debt due them from Peter Rollins, deceased." Defendant then rested.

Plaintiffs, in rebuttal, offered to show that Peter Rollins, at the time of his death, was indebted to them on account for supplies advanced for the year 1889 to make a crop, and that the cotton received by them was appropriated in satisfaction of this account, and of a debt contracted by the widow and children of the deceased after his death; that such appropriation was made by consent of the widow and children, one of whom was a minor; that the cotton was only sufficient in value to liquidate said indebtedness; that this was done to avoid the necessity of taking out letters of administration upon the estate; that plaintiffs were the only creditors of said Peter Rollins, who owed no debts except said account and the notes in suit. The said account had never been probated, and the twelve months within which creditors were allowed to probate claims, had not expired at the time of the trial. Defendant objected to this rebuttal testimony offered by plaintiffs, and the same was excluded. To this action of the court plaintiffs excepted. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. The opinion contains a further statement of the case.

Affirmed.

H. Cassedy, for appellants.

On behalf of defendant it was urged below that, because there had been no administration on the estate, and because the open account for supplies had not been probated at the time the cotton was appropriated to its payment, the settlement was not binding on the administratrix, who was one of the parties consenting to it. The law interposes no obstacle to the amicable settlement of a decedent's estate by the only parties interested in it--heirs and creditors. Such a settlement was proposed to be shown by the evidence which was. excluded. Sections 2027, 2028, code 1880, have no application to the state of case presented. The entire estate descended to the heirs, subject only to the claims of creditors, and the heirs could make such disposition of it as they saw fit. In this case no one but appellants, the only creditors, had a right to object to the settlement, and they did not...