In re Judy's Estate

• Decision Date: 17 December 1901
• Citation: 166 Mo. 13,65 S.W. 993
• Parties: In re JUDY'S ESTATE. CHURCH et al. v. FARRELL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

65 S.W. 993

166 Mo. 13

In re JUDY'S ESTATE CHURCH et al. v. FARRELL.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 17, 1901.

ADMINISTRATOR—PARTNERSHIP—SURVIVING PARTNER—PARTNERSHIP ADMINISTRATION —JUDGMENTS—COLLATERAL ATTACK.

1. Where the administrator of the private estate of a deceased person is also appointed by the probate court to administer the affairs of an alleged partnership between the intestate and the administrator as surviving partner thereof, it is an adjudication of the existence of such partnership which can only be directly attacked for fraud, and not collaterally by exceptions to the administrator's final report.

2. Where an administrator of the private estate of a deceased partner is also appointed to administer the partnership estate as surviving partner, and his acts in the latter capacity are approved by the final judgment of the court, such judgment is conclusive; and his failure to account for the good will of the partnership, and the correctness of his account of the partnership affairs, are not subject to attack or review by exceptions to his final report as administrator of the private estate.

3. The settlement of the partnership estate by the surviving partner is not void as being made with himself as administrator of the private estate, as such settlements are subject to the order of the court, and objections thereto could have been made by persons interested in the private estate.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Wm. Zachritz, Judge.

Exceptions by Henry L. Church and others to the final report of James T. Farrell as administrator of the estate of Alice C. Judy, deceased. From a decree overruling such exceptions, the exceptors appeal. Affirmed.

This case arises on exceptions by heirs of Alice C. Judy to the final settlement of Farrell, the administrator of Mrs. Judy's estate. The exceptions were overruled by the probate court of the city of St. Louis, and also by the circuit court of that city, and the heirs appealed. The exceptions are (1) that the administrator did not inventory or account for the good will of the firm of W. W. Judy & Co., a business owned and carried on in that name by Mrs. Judy, which it is alleged was of the value of $20,000; (2) that the administrator received at the time of his appointment $4,367.06 in cash belonging to Mrs. Judy, and thereafter collected various other sums amounting to $2,153.31, aggregating $7,520.37 (evidently a mistake, as the two sums only amount to $6,520.37), and only accounted for $3,292.37, and converted the balance to his own use; (3) that the administrator at the time of his appointment received, as the property of Mrs. Judy, certain specified property, of the value of $372.95, which he failed to account for, and converted to his own use. The evidence adduced in the circuit court, and the special finding of facts by that court, establish the facts to be that for many years W. W. Judy carried on a game and produce business; that he employed Farrell as the manager thereof; that Judy died some time prior to October 27, 1891. There was no administration upon his estate, but his widow, Alice C. Judy, was the sole legatee under his will. On the 27th of October, 1891, she and Farrell entered into the following agreement: "Articles of copartnership made and entered into this twenty-seventh day of October, 1891, by and between A. C. Judy and James T. Farrell, both of the city of St. Louis, state of Missouri, witnesseth, that for and in consideration of the services of managing the business known as W. W. Judy & Company Commission Business, and his stand at the Union Market, which business and stand now belong entirely to Alice Judy, as well as all of the capital invested in the business, it is agreed that James Farrell shall receive for his services one-half of the net yearly profits after all expenses of every kind, nature, and description attending the carrying on of said business are first paid. And it is further agreed that neither one...