Keeton v. Spradling

• Citation: 13 Mo. 321
• Parties: ROBERT KEETON ET AL. v. WILLIAM SPRADLING ET AL.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1850
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

13 Mo. 321

ROBERT KEETON ET AL.

v.WILLIAM SPRADLING ET AL.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1850.

APPEAL FROM ST. FRANCOIS CIRCUIT COURT.

FRISSELL, for Appellants. 1. The failure to insert the names of the securities in the body of the bond, does not vitiate the bond. Ex-parte Fulton, 7 Cowen, 485; Smith v. Crocker et al. 5 Mass. R. 538; Dobson v. Keys, Cro. Jac. 261; 6 Mart. La. R. 497; Blakey v. Blakey, 2 Dana, 460; Bartley & Ferguson v. Yales, 2 Hen, & Mun. 398; Adams v. Wilson, 10 Mo. R. 341; Tevis v. Hughes, 10 Mo. R. 380; 1 Tuck. Com. 275; Crawford v. Janett's Adm'r, 2 Leigh, 630. 2. It is insisted that the complainants had no remedy at law, for the reason of the false and fraudulent final settlement of Wm. Keeton in the Jefferson County Court. This settlement must be set aside before the remedy at law would be available. See Keeton's Distributees v. Campbell et al. Humphrey's R. 224.

COLE, for Appellees. 1. That as to the demurrant there is no equity in the bill of complaint. The bill is to enforce a penalty in a bond against appellee. This belongs to a court of law: Com. on Eq. Pl. by Story, p. 398, § 521; Laws of Mo. p. 836, § 1. 2. That if the complainants are entitled to any remedy, it is at law. 1 Chitty's Pl. 39; 2 Chitty, 209, 16, 520. They have an adequate remedy there. 3. That the instrument, called by complainants a bond, is in fact not the bond of John Smith T., nor was the same in any wise obligatory upon him during his life-time, nor upon his heirs since. Adams v. Wilson, 10 Mo. R. 342; Tevis v. Hughes, 10 Mo. R. 381. 4. That the bill of complaint contains distinct matters and separate demands that cannot be joined together. The bill is multifarious. Story's Pl. in Eq. 153, note 1 and 2; Maddock, 193; Jones v. Paul, 9 Mo. R. 296; Blackwell v. Wilkson, 4 Mo. R. 428.

NAPTON, J.

This is a bill in chancery, filed in the Circuit Court of St Francois county, by the heirs of John Keeton against William Spradling, administrator of William Keeton, wo was in his life-time the administrator of John Keeton, and against the heirs of John Smith T., and Elisha Ellis who were securities in the administration bond of said William Keeton.

The facts upon which relief is sought are stated in the bill as follows: John Keeton came to Jefferson county, in Missouri, some time in 1825, leaving his family and the bulk of his estate in Tennessee, but bringing with him about twenty slaves. He died early in the fall of 1826, and on the 8th September of that year, letters of administration upon his estate were granted by the Probate Court of Jefferson county to Michael Taney. On the 15th March, 1827, these letters were revoked and letters of administration were granted to William Keeton, who came to this State for this purpose and who had previously taken out letters of administration upon John Keeton's estate in Tennessee. John Smith T. and Elisha Ellis became securities upon William Keeton's bond. William Keeton hired out the slaves, but kept the proceeds and shortly removed the slaves to Tennessee. He then made a pretended or fraudulent sale of them, without any order of a court of competent jurisdiction, and became himself the purchaser of a portion of them and others were bought in by the heirs. He returned to this State with such of the slaves as he had fraudulently thus purchased, died here, and the slaves are now in the possession of his administrator, William Spradling.

William Keeton had made a final settlement with the Probate Court of Jefferson county on the 11th September, 1830, which is alleged to be fraudulent. It is further stated in the bill, that William Keeton, as administrator of John Keeton in Tennessee, received large sums of money, unaccounted for, amounting to about $1,500 to each heir. That suit was instituted in Tennessee upon the bond given there, against the securities in that bond, that a decree was rendered and an account ordered, but that this decree was reversed by the Supreme Court of that State, or at least. so much of it as held the securities upon the Tennessee bond liable for the slaves received in Missouri. It is also stated that P. Pipkin, administrator de bonis non of John Keeton has brought suit against Spradling for these slaves.

The prayer of the bill is that Spradling, who is the administrator of William Keeton, deceased, may be held accountable for the hire of the slaves under his control as such administrator, and originally belonging to the estate of John Keeton and as far as he has received assets, may be also responsible for the annual value of these slaves from the time they came into the hands of W. Keeton as administrator of John Keeton, that in the event of a deficiency of assets, the heirs of John Smith T. and Elisha Ellis be held accountable for this deficiency, their ancestors having been securities upon W. Keeton's bond as administrator.

The bill charges that all of John Keeton's debts have been paid. To this bill a demurrer was filed, and sustained by the Circuit Court. This bill though containing a great deal of irrelevant matter, seems designed as an auxiliary proceeding to a suit at law instituted by Pipkin, the administrator de bonis non of John Keeton, for the possession of certain slaves alleged to have been fraudulently procured by William Keeton. The prayer of the bill is confined entirely to an account of the annual value or hire of these slaves, from the time they fell into the possession of W. Keeton as administrator of John Keeton, up to the institution of the suit at law by Pipkin. As William Keeton had made a final settlement of his administration in the Probate Court of Jefferson about eighteen years before the institution of these proceedings, it was necessary to set aside this settlement, as an insuperable bar to the claims here advanced on the part of his heirs. This settlement is therefore attacked as fraudulent. The statements of the bill in relation to William Keeton's mal-administration in Tennessee and his failure to pay over to the heirs the several sums to which they were entitled upon a fair settlement of the Tennessee estate, appears to be entirely foreign...