Moses Ridley's Adm'rs v. Ridley
| Decision Date | 31 December 1860 |
| Citation | 41 Tenn. 323 |
| Parties | MOSES RIDLEY'S ADMINISTRATORS v. ELIZABETH RIDLEY et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM RUTHERFORD.
This cause was heard by Samuel D. Frierson, chancellor for the Fourth Division of the State, presiding by interchange with Chancellor Broomfield L. Ridley, at the June term, 1859. There was a decree in favor of the complainants. Respondents appealed.
John Marshall, James M. Avent, and E. D. Hancock, for complainants.
Edmund Cooper and Edwin A. Keeble, for respondents.
The original bill in this case was filed by Moses Ridley, against the widow and heirs of Henry Ridley, for an account. The facts, in brief, as shown by the pleadings and proof, are that Henry Ridley, who was the owner of a considerable estate and much in debt, died in July, 1835, suddenly, of cholera, after having upon his death-bed requested his brother, Moses Ridley, in whom he had the utmost confidence, to take the management of his estate. Moses Ridley, in November of the same year, qualified as his administrator in Rutherford County, Tennessee, and shortly afterwards in Hinds County, Mississippi; but for some informality by the Probate Court in taking the bond in Mississippi, the said Moses Ridley was removed by the same court, at the instance of one of the defendants, after thirteen years of faithful service for the benefit of the estate of his deceased brother.
The estate of Henry Ridley in Mississippi, at the time of his death, consisted of a plantation and slaves, most of which had been purchased on a credit by him just before his death.
Moses Ridley continued the cotton-planting in Mississippi until he was removed, about the 1st of June, 1848, greatly to the interest of the widow and heirs of his deceased brother, the estate having been much improved in that time.
This case was before this court three years ago, by appeal from the decree of the chancellor ordering an account, and at which time the actings and doings of said Moses Ridley in carrying on the Mississippi farm were carefully examined and fully approved, and the cause remanded for an account, the basis then having been fully and definitely settled.
Upon taking the account, by the master's report it appears that the estate of H. Ridley was indebted to the estate of Moses Ridley (the latter having died shortly after filing the bill) forty-eight thousand two hundred and eighty-six dollars and fifteen cents. This report was excepted to by both parties, and upon the hearing a decree was pronounced by the chancellor for thirty-eight thousand two hundred and three dollars and eighty-one cents. From this decree both parties appealed.
All the points arising upon the exceptions have been examined by the court, and though requiring much patient labor,--the record being one of eight hundred pages,--yet we have had but little difficulty except upon a single exception. The eighth exception of defendants is in these words: “Because the clerk and master allows Moses Ridley a credit of five thousand dollars paid to Thomas M. Warren, when the proof shows that no such debt was owing by the estate of Henry Ridley, nor was that amount ever paid by Moses Ridley out of his estate.”
This exception was allowed by the chancellor, and the $5,000 and the interest thereon were stricken out of the report by the decree. We have carefully examined all the proof upon this item, and find the question raised by the exception by no means free from difficulty.
The note upon which this payment is claimed as a credit was made by Thomas S. Anthony, payable to Warren, for $9,000, dated the 5th of June, 1834, and due the 1st of March, 1835; and on which $4,433.76 had been paid, as shown by an indorsement on the back of the note, in cotton, on the 25th of March, 1835.
The balance of the note is the subject of the exception; and whether Moses Ridley paid it, is the question. This note, with two others for $10,000, each of the same date, and due respectively the 1st of March, 1836, and the 1st of March, 1837, was given for a tract of land and some slaves in Mississippi, bought by Anthony of Warren on the day of the date of said note. On the 29th of September, 1834, Henry Ridley and Anthony entered into partnership in cotton-planting in Mississippi. Articles were drawn and signed, by which Ridley was to be the joint owner with Anthony of the land and negroes bought of Warren, and he was to pay one-half the purchase money,--the articles specifying the three notes, which amounted to $29,000. On the 21st of May, 1835, Ridley bought the remaining moiety of the land and slaves from Anthony, agreeing to give for the same, and other property added, $42,000. This agreement was reduced to writing, and sets forth the mode and manner of payment.
The argument on behalf of complainant is, that a balance amounting to about five thousand dollars of the nine-thousand-dollar note remained unpaid at the death of Henry Ridley, and that Moses Ridley paid the same in 1835, and that he should have a credit therefor; because, by the terms of the contract of September 29th, Henry Ridley was to pay one-half this debt; and especially because, by the terms of the sale from Warren to Anthony, Warren had a lien upon the property, land and slaves, for the whole $29,000. In other words, that the estate which came into the hands of Moses Ridley as administrator was encumbered with a mortgage to secure the $9,000. We see from this record that the lien existed, and therefore if Moses Ridley paid the debt it was a valid payment, for which he should have a credit. But the question is, did Moses Ridley pay the balance of the $9,000?
Thomas M. Warren distinctly proves that Moses Ridley paid him that balance in Nashville, in 1835, through H. R. W. Hill; and Moses Ridley, as his administrator, files the note; and there is proof that Moses Ridley was able to pay the debt, though he might have received nothing from Henry Ridley's estate. For ought that appears in this record, Thomas M. Warren is a reputable witness, and we have investigated this case giving him full credit. The fact that Moses Ridley had the means to pay amounts to little or nothing, as the only witness relied on to prove the payment says it was paid through H. R. W. Hill; and the additional fact that complainant filed the note is neutralized by the fact that, as administrator, Moses Ridley, doubtless received all the papers of Henry Ridley. This leaves the positive testimony of Thomas M. Warren upon the one side and the facts and circumstances on the other, hereinafter referred to, to be weighed.
The note in question fell...
To continue reading
Request your trial