Madden's Heirs v. Madden's Adm'r

• Decision Date: 31 October 1858
• Parties: MADDEN'S HEIRS, Appellants, v. MADDEN'S ADMINISTRATOR AND HEIRS, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

27 Mo. 544

MADDEN'S HEIRS, Appellants,

v.MADDEN'S ADMINISTRATOR AND HEIRS, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1858.

1. By the rules of chancery practice in force prior to the passage of the practice act of 1848, bills of exceptions were as necessary as in common law suits.

2. Whether an administrator shall be charged with interest on money in his hands belonging to his intestate's estate is to be determined by the circumstances of each case; he is not to be so charged as a matter of course.

Appeal from Washington Circuit Court.

This was a bill in chancery, filed March 11, 1847, by certain of the heirs of Tomas Madden, senior, deceased, against certain other of the heirs of said Madden and his administrator. The object of the bill was to bring all the heirs into hotchpot, to obtain a settlement of the accounts of the administrator, a sale of the lands of the intestate, and an equalization of the heirs in the distribution of the estate. The facts being exceedingly complicated, it is deemed unnecessary to state them. The ground of the decision sufficiently appears in the opinion of the court. Both plaintiffs and defendants appeal.

Frissell, for appellants.

I. The court erred in dismissing the supplemental bill.

II. Interest was erroneously charged against the administrator.

T. C. Johnson, for respondents.

I. If any error was committed in the matter charging the administrator with interest upon moneys received by him, the error was in his favor and not to his prejudice. (Dunscomb v. Dunscomb, 1 Johns. Ch. 509; id. 533, 618; Strong v. Wilkerson, 14 Mo. 116.) The court committed no error in refusing leave to file a supplemental bill.

SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was a suit in chancery, commenced in 1847, under the old practice. Under that practice, bills of exceptions were as necessary in chancery as in common law suits. The accounts settled by the court, or by a commissioner appointed by the court, could only be reviewed here on objections and exceptions to the opinions of the court. When an account was settled by a commissioner, exceptions were taken, and they were stated in the report, together with the evidence, and reported to the court, who decided the points raised before the commissioner if they were renewed, and on that decision an exception was taken as in all other cases. There is nothing in this record but the final decree, which can be reviewed by this court. The calculations and evidence on which that decree is based not being preserved, there are no means of ascertaining its correctness.

Surely the case of Strong v. Wilson, 14 Mo. 116, did not intend to introduce any new method of settling administrator's accounts. Whether an administrator is to be charged with interest on the money in his hands belonging to an estate, is a question to be determined by the...