Moulton v. Smith

• Decision Date: 04 February 1888
• Citation: 16 R.I. 126,12 A. 891
• Parties: MOULTON v. SMITH.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

12 A. 891

16 R.I. 126

MOULTON

v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

February 4, 1888.

Bill in equity by Wilson P. Moulton, administrator of Charles H. West, against George L. Smith, administrator of Phebe A. West, to establish a lien.

Joseph C. Ely, for complainant. Benjamin M. Bosworth, for respondent.

DURFEE, G. J. Phebe A., wife of Charles H. West, died February 25, 1884, leaving a will by which she gave her whole estate, real and personal, to her husband for life, and after him to her brother and nieces. The will was duly proved, and West was appointed administrator with the will annexed. He filed an inventory from which it appears that the personal estate left by his wife amounted to $1,021.52, and consisted of bank stock valued at $535, a savings bank deposit of $100, and $193.20 in cash, besides household furniture. He paid $248.60 for funeral expenses and $20.45 for probate charges. He also paid $95 to the physician who attended his wife in her last sickness. He employed a stone-cutter to set up a marker at her grave, and to cut an inscription for her on his monument, who rendered a bill of $42, which has not been paid. The bills rendered all make the charges, not against West individually, but against the estate. West died February 2, 1887, before rendering any account as administrator to the probate court, though, according to the evidence, he intended to do so. The complainant was appointed administrator on his estate. The defendant was appointed administrator de bonis non on his wife's estate. The object of this suit is to have the court declare a lien on the stock and deposit for the amounts aforesaid, in favor of the complainant as administrator on West's estate, and for compensation for West's services as administrator on his wife's estate, and to have so much of said stock and deposit as is necessary sold for the payment thereof. It is provided in Pub. St. R. I. c. 189, § 1, that "the estate of every deceased person shall be chargeable with the expenses of administering the same, and the funeral charges of the deceased, and the payment of his just debts; and the same shall be paid by the executor or administrator of the estate out of the same, so far as the same shall be sufficient therefor." In Buxton v. Barrett, 14 R. I. 40 this court held that the estate of a woman dying under coverture is chargeable, by force of this provision, for her funeral expenses, and, if so, it is likewise chargeable for the expenses of administering it. We see no reasons, therefore, why the sums paid by Charles H. West for funeral and probate expenses, together with a reasonable compensation for his services as administrator, should not be paid out of his wife's estate. That he was her husband is not, in our opinion, enough to relieve her estate; for there is no reason why he should not have had the same right as any other administrator with the will annexed if he wished, and the fact that he had the charges made against the estate in the receipts which he took shows that he did wish it. The physician's bill and the stone-cutter's bill stand differently. There is nothing in the statute to make the estate chargeable with the physician's bill unless it can be regarded as a debt due from the testatrix, but we do not see how it can, since, being covert, she was unable to contract such a debt. We think it is to be regarded as the personal debt of her husband, and that, having paid it, he was not entitled to charge it to the estate. In regard to the stone-cutter's bill it seems to us that, where the estate is solvent, some simple and inexpensive stone or tablet to mark the grave is demanded by the decencies of Christian burial, and may be properly regarded as a part of the funeral expenses. The statute (Pub. St. R. I. c. 189, § 4) which allows the erection of a suitable monument, "with the permission of the court of probate," in our opinion, contemplates something more pretentious. But in this case, the bill never having been paid by West, his administrator has nothing to do with it. The complainant, therefore, can only have relief, if at all, in the matter of funeral and probate charges and compensation. The defendant contends that he is not entitled to relief in equity, but that the proper course for him is to settle his intestate's account, as administrator, with the probate court, and then, if he makes out his claims, to prosecute his remedy at law. This view is supported by Munroe v. Holmes, 9 Allen, 244, 13 Allen, 109; Prentice v. Dehon, 10 Allen, 353; the remedy at law according to these cases being, after settlement in the probate court, a suit on the second administrator's bond. That an administrator of an administrator may settle his intestate's account with the probate court is maintained in several American cases on English authority. Nowell v. Nowell, 2 Me. 75; Hamaker's Estate, 5 Watts, 204; Ray v. Doughty, 4 Blackf. 115; Jones v. Ivoine's Ex'rs, 23 Miss. 361; Steen v. Steen, 25 Miss. 513; Jarnagin v. Frank, 59 Miss. 393. No exceptions can be taken to this doctrine, where the terms in which probate jurisdiction is conferred are such as warrant its application; but, of course, in this country, the probate courts have only the jurisdiction given them by statute, and it does not follow that they have a power simply...