Maxwell v. Walsh
| Decision Date | 19 March 1903 |
| Citation | 43 S.E. 704,117 Ga. 467 |
| Parties | MAXWELL v. WALSH. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Mere constructive fraud will not prevent the bar of the statute of limitations from attaching to a claim growing out of a payment by mistake of a sum of money in excess of that to which a creditor of the person making payment was entitled and especially is this true where the latter not only neglected to use diligence to acquaint himself with the actual amount of his indebtedness, but was guilty of laches in not sooner discovering the mistake under which he and his creditor acted.
Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; E. L. Brinson, Judge.
Action by Fannie T. Maxwell against Anna B. Walsh. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
E. B Baxter and Hamilton Phinizy, for plaintiff in error.
C. H Cohen, for defendant in error.
On August 8, 1900, Fannie T. Maxwell, as administratrix of the estate of John L. Maxwell, brought an equitable petition against Anna Bell Walsh, as executrix of the estate of Patrick Walsh, wherein the following facts were set forth For many years prior to his death, John L. Maxwell was the agent of Patrick Walsh, and, as such, was charged with the management of many of his business affairs and property interests. "In connection with his said agency, it was his duty to make, and he did make, frequent collections and disbursements of the funds of the said Walsh, and there thus arose between him and the said Walsh a current account, consisting of numerous items of credit and debit." Upon the death of Maxwell the plaintiff was duly appointed and qualified as administratrix of his estate. Subsequently, during the year 1892, "Walsh caused to be prepared a statement of the account arising, as indicated above, between him and the said Maxwell," according to which his estate was "indebted to the said Walsh in the sum of $6,361.19," and this "account was presented to petitioner as a claim against the said Maxwell's estate." When demand was made upon her "for the payment of this claim, the said Walsh stated to petitioner that the account submitted to her had been prepared by an expert and competent accountant, who had made a thorough investigation of the matters therein contained, and that the same was correct, and he swore to the same as correct; but he agreed, at petitioner's personal solicitation, and upon personal considerations, to accept one-half of said demand, and to give the estate of said Maxwell a full discharge and acquittal." She was at that time "entirely unfamiliar with the details of the business relations between her said husband and the said Walsh, *** had perfect confidence in" him, and "there was nothing to put her on notice that this claim was not substantially correct." Petitioner "ascertained that said account had been examined and said statement made by a competent bookkeeper, as stated by said Walsh, and *** she thereupon paid to the said Walsh, upon the advice of competent counsel, in settlement of said balance, the sum of $3,180.59." This payment was made in 1892. Walsh died on March 17, 1899. Some 18 months prior to the filing of her petition, "she was led to suspect that certain gross inaccuracies existed in said Walsh's said claim," and accordingly "employed an expert accountant to investigate the matter fully." After an investigation covering a period of many months, she ascertained that the account rendered her was incorrect, in that it contained a charge against Maxwell of $1,800 for money which never went into his hands; another item, of $200, with which he should not have been charged; and a third item, of $1,260, which should have been only $425--besides other erroneous charges against him. In settlement of this account, petitioner gave to Walsh "fifteen shares of Augusta & Summerville Land Company stock, of the value of $3,180.59," whereas all that was really due to him by the estate of Maxwell was $458.20. Petitioner and "she was compelled to rely and did rely upon him to render to her a just demand against her said husband's estate." By reason of the settlement by her of this account in ignorance of the errors therein above specified, his estate has "suffered great financial loss," and this settlement operated as and "amounted to a legal fraud upon her as administratrix of the said estate, though she does not charge, nor does she believe, that said errors were known to said Walsh." The defendant was appointed executrix of his estate on the 3d day of April, 1899, and, as such, is liable to account to petitioner for the 15 shares of stock delivered to Walsh as aforesaid, or the value of the same, to the end that a true and just accounting may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial