Pike v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 28 March 1896
• Citation: 35 S.W. 212
• Parties: PIKE v. THOMAS.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

35 S.W. 212

PIKE v. THOMAS.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 28, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Clark county; Rufus D. Hearn, Judge.

Petition to the probate court by Yvon Pike, administrator of Luther H. Pike, deceased, for an order directing Charles L. Thomas, administrator of Louis Thomas, deceased, to pay a sum claimed by petitioner for legal services rendered under a contract with defendant. Judgment was rendered for a smaller sum than demanded, and petitioner appealed to the circuit court, where judgment was again rendered in his favor, and said petitioner appeals. Reversed.

Luther H. Pike filed his petition in the probate court of Clark county setting up the following contract: "Whereas, I, Charles L. Thomas, as administrator of the estates, respectively, of Louis Thomas, deceased, and H. H. Carter, deceased, of Arkadelphia, in the county of Clark, in the state of Arkansas, have employed Luther H. Pike, attorney and counselor, of Washington, D. C., to take charge of and prosecute to its final determination, in such lawful manner as he may deem best for my interests, the certain claims against the United States for $2,625 and $866.50, respectively, that were presented to the commissioners of claims under the act of congress of March 3, 1871, — the one on behalf of the estate of said Louis Thomas, the other by said H. H. Carter, — and were disallowed by it, said attorney to defray the further prosecution of said claims out of his own proper means, without reclamation therefor: Now, therefore, I do hereby agree, in consideration thereof, to pay to them a sum of money equal to 50 per centum of the amounts that may be recovered on said claims, the payment of which is hereby made a lien upon the said claims and upon any drafts, money, or evidence of indebtedness which may be paid or issued thereon. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 28th day of July, A. D. 1886. [Seal.] Charles L. Thomas. Witnesses: J. P. Hart. A. M. Crow." And he alleged that under said contract he had obtained judgment for $1,338, which had been paid in full to C. L. Thomas, as administrator of Louis Thomas, deceased, and that under said contract he (Pike) was entitled to the sum of $669, which said administrator had refused to pay. The petition asked for an order upon the administrator to pay over to petitioner said sum. To the petition was attached an account, duly verified. Upon a hearing the court adjudged that petitioner was only entitled to the sum of $57.45. Pike appealed to the circuit court, where judgment was again rendered in his favor for same amount, and for the further sum of $69.90 for expenses incurred by him in prosecuting the claim. Pike, being still dissatisfied with the judgment, prosecutes this appeal.

Dodge & Johnson, for appellant.

WOOD, J. (after stating the facts).

This court has repeatedly held that an administrator has no power to bind the estate he represents by his individual contracts. The last announcement upon the subject was in an opinion delivered by Judge Riddick at the present term in Tucker v. Grace, 61 Ark. ___, 33 S. W. 530, where he said: "An attorney employed by the administrator of an estate has no claim against the estate, although his services may have inured to the benefit of the estate. He must look for compensation to the administrator who employed him." It was there also said to be the "proper practice, where the administrator refuses to pay for such services, for the attorney to bring suit against him individually, and not in his representative capacity." Id., and authorities there cited. In Turner v. Tapscott, 30 Ark. 312, the learned judge, in drawing the distinction "between contracts...