Partridge v. Partridge's Ex'rs

• Decision Date: 04 April 1890
• Citation: 19 A. 662,46 N.J.E. 434
• Parties: PARTRIDGE et al. v. PARTRIDGE'S EX'RS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

19 A. 662

46 N.J.E. 434

PARTRIDGE et al.

v. PARTRIDGE'S EX'RS et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

April 4, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

On demurrer. Bill for relief by George Partridge, Josiah Partridge, H. Estella Stouten borough, and Mary M. Woodman, against the executors of Charles Partridge, deceased, and Fannie A. Partridge.

S. H. Jones and Theodore Runyon, for complainants. John J. Hubbell and Louis Hood, for demurrants.

VAN FLEET, V. C. The situation which gave rise to this suit may be sufficiently stated, for present purposes, as follows: Charles Partridge died testate in January, 1885. His will was proved shortly after his death, before the surrogate of Essex county. The complainants are creditors of his estate in a sum exceeding $14,000. Their debts have been proved, and the proofs presented to his executors, but the debts have not been paid. His estate has not been declared insolvent; it is not so in fact. The balance shown to be in the hands of his executors, by their final account, as restated and settled by the orphans' court of the county of Essex, exceeds $37,000. The actual balance, however, in their hands, in cash, when their account was allowed, was less than $8,000, and that sum constituted the whole of the estate which could then or can now be applied, by judicial means, to the payment of either debts or legacies. One of the executors is insolvent, and a non-resident. The other is a man of small means, not sufficient to enable him to pay any considerable part of the debts due to the complainants. After the executors filed their final account, exceptions were filed to it, and the orphans' court, in pronouncing judgment on the exceptions, decreed, among other things, that, because the complainants had consented to the payment by the executors to one Charles F. Partridge of a large sum of money, more than sufficient to pay their debts, out of moneys which were, in the opinion of the court, primarily liable for the payment of the testator's debts, the executors should stand relieved and discharged from liability to the complainants for their debts; and, further, that a sum in excess of the whole cash balance in hands of the executors should be paid to the testator's residuary legatee. The complainants bring this suit to get protection against the decree, and to prevent the only part of the testator's estate, which can now be applied to the payment of their debts from being placed beyond the reach of judicial process. They insist that the decree is coram non judice. All the defendants have demurred; the executors, as well as the residuary legatee.

The demurrer raises but a single question, and that is, had the orphans' court power, under the facts alleged in the bill, and admitted by the demurrer, to make a decree subordinating the rights of the complainants, as creditors, to those of the residuary legatee? The decree, it will be observed, concedes that the complainants are creditors. It does not rest on a finding that their claims are false; that the court, although it found that the debts were unpaid, nevertheless adjudged that, in consequence of certain inequitable conduct of which the complainants had been guilty, both the executors and the funds in their hands should stand discharged from all liability for the debts. The power thus exercised, as is manifest, is purely...