Patton v. Overton

• Decision Date: 31 December 1847
• Citation: 27 Tenn. 192
• Parties: PATTON v. OVERTON et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

27 Tenn. 192

PATTON

v.OVERTON et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December Term, 1847.

This bill was filed in the chancery court, held at Columbia, but the presiding chancellor being incompetent to try it, the case was transferred to the circuit court held for the county of Maury, when Judge Dillahunty having heard the bill, answer, replication, and proofs read, and the case argued, gave a decree in favor of complainants. From this decree the defendant appealed. The facts of the cause are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

D. Campbell and Martin, for defendants.

Nicholson and Houston, for defendants.

McKinney, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts material to be noticed in this case are as follows: In the early part of the year 1836 Samuel Overton died intestate, in the parish of Carroll, state of Louisiana, the place of his domicile, without lawful issue, never having been married. He left an estate of considerable value, consisting of lands, slaves, and other personal property. His next of kin and heirs at law were Jesse Overton and Cassandra Byus, wife of James Byus, who were citizens of Maury county, in this state; Thomas J. Overton, who resided in Mississippi, and the complainant and his brother, John O. Patton; the former was a citizen of this state, the latter resided in Louisiana. Jesse Overton and Cassandra Byus were brother and sister of the whole blood. Thomas J. Overton was a brother of the half blood, and complainant and John O. Patton were the only children of Martha Patton, a sister of the whole blood, who died in 1815.

In the month of April, 1836, the said Jesse Overton, Thomas J. Overton, James Byus and wife, applied to the probate court of the parish of Carroll, Louisiana, to have themselves recognized as the legal heirs of the said Samuel Overton, and to have the curatorship or administration of his succession taken out of the hands of said John O. Patton, to whom it had been previously committed by said court, and to have the same placed in their hands. A decree to this effect was made, and they were put in possession of the succession, and were appointed curators, or administrators thereof, without security. Under this appointment they received into their possession twelve slaves, and perhaps other property. They immediately proceeded to make a division of said slaves among themselves, and very shortly afterwards the defendants Jesse Overton and Byus and wife returned to Tennessee, bringing with them their respective slaves, and have ever since held the same. The complainant was absent and had no participation in the division of said slaves. The right of the complainant, John O. Patton, to any share of slaves was denied by the defendants, upon the ground, as they alleged, that, by the law of Louisiana, the surviving brothers and sisters of the intestate were alone entitled to inherit his estate. It does not appear that the defendants paid any debts of the estate, or performed any duties appertaining to their office of curator, or administrator in Louisiana or elsewhere; neither does it appear that there were any debts due from the estate, except a claim set up by the plaintiff, John O. Patton, which is denied by the other defendants, and of which there is no proof.

The complainant alleges that he has acquired the interest of John O. Patton, in said succession of Samuel Overton; and that he is, therefore, entitled to one-fourth of said slaves, money, and other effects received by said administrators in Louisiana, in virtue of their said appointment. The defendants deny having received money, or other property belonging to said succession, except the slaves, and there is no proof to the contrary. They allege that the defendant, John O. Patton, took into his possession and squandered the money and other assets before their appointment, and the slaves are really the only matter in controversy in this cause. The chancellor decreed for the complainants, and the defendants, except John O. Patton, prosecute an appeal to this court.

The right of the complainant and John O. Patton to represent their mother in the succession of Samuel Overton, equally with the surviving brothers and sister, by the law of Louisiana, is not controverted in argument here, nor can it be. See Civil Code of Louisiana, articles 890-893. The relief sought by the bill is resisted upon other grounds.

1. It is insisted that the slaves in question having been received and brought into this state by the defendants, in the character of administrators, in virtue of the administration granted by the probate court of Louisiana, they are not liable to be sued here, either by creditors or distributees of the estate of Samuel Overton; that they are alone answerable...