Reinstein v. Smith, Case No. 2122.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1886
• Docket Number: Case No. 2122.
• Citation: 65 Tex. 247
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: W. REINSTEIN v. C. P. SMITH, ADMINISTRATRIX.

65 Tex. 247

W. REINSTEIN

v.C. P. SMITH, ADMINISTRATRIX.

Case No. 2122.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1886.

APPEAL from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. McFarland.

This suit was instituted on February 20, 1885, in the district court of Washington county, to establish a rejected account against the estate of John S. Smith, deceased, of which appellee is administratrix. The allegations of plaintiff's petition are, in substance, as follows:

That the defendant is administratrix de bonis non of the estate of John S. Smith, deceased; that during the years 1883, 1884, one R. P. Perkins, deceased, was administrator of the estate; that the estate of Smith consisted, among other things, of several large plantations, in cultivation at the time of his death; that the plantations could not be rented, and would have greatly depreciated in value if not kept in cultivation, and it was for the interest of the estate that the plantations should be carried on and cultivated by the administrator; that, it appearing most to the interest of the estate to do so, Perkins, as administrator of the estate, carried on and cultivated the plantations during the year 1883, and until his death in October, 1884; that, at the request of Perkins, plaintiff advanced him, as administrator, from time to time, money, provisions, etc., which were charged against the estate of Smith, for the purposes mentioned, and for repairs on the plantations, fully itemized in plaintiff's account attached to his petition as an exhibit, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $1,840.08; that, without such advances, Perkins would have been unable to secure labor to carry on the plantations for the use and benefit of the estate; that the expenses so incurred were reasonable and proper charges for the purposes mentioned, and, by agreement of the plaintiff and Perkins, were charged to the estate; that Perkins died in October, 1884; that after his death several of the tenants and employes on the plantations, who had received advances charged in said account, paid and accounted therefor to the defendant as administratrix as aforesaid, who had continued to carry on the plantations after Perkins' death until the close of the year 1884; that he received for the use and benefit of the estate the crops grown thereon; and that the account is due and wholly unpaid, was presented to the administratrix for approval, properly verified, on February 5, 1885, and was by her rejected.

Demurrers, general and special, were interposed by defendant, questioning the liability of the estate for a debt contracted for the purposes set forth in the petition. The demurrers were sustained and the suit was dismissed, from which ruling this appeal is prosecuted.

Sayles & Bassett, for appellant, that an administrator is authorized to carry on a plantation, and that no order of court is required therefor, cited: R. S., arts. 1930, 1931, 1932.

That the expenses incurred in the preservation, safe-keeping and management of an estate are proper charges against it, they cited: R. S., art. 2037.

That a creditor is entitled to recover from the estate reasonable and proper expenses and charges incurred by the administrator in the preservation, safe-keeping and management thereof, they cited: Adriance v. Crews, 45 Tex. 181;Price v. McIver, 25 Tex. 769;Caldwell v. Young & Morgan, 21 Tex. 800;Andrus v Pettus, 36 Tex. 108;Timmel v. Philleo, 33 Tex. 395;Davenport v. Lawrence, 19 Tex. 317;Young v. Smith, 22 Tex. 345;Jones v. Lewis, 11 Tex. 359;Portis v. Cole, 11 Tex. 157.

C. R. Breedlove, for appellee, cited: McMahan v. Harbert's Adm'r, 35 Tex. 451; McKinney v. Peters, Dallam, 545.

STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

This action was brought against the administratrix of the estate of John S. Smith to recover on a rejected claim for money and supplies advanced to a former administrator, to enable him to have cultivated during the years 1883 and 1884, several plantations which belonged to the estate.

The petition is full in its averments as to the necessity for the administrator to have the plantations cultivated, the prudence of his undertaking to do so, the value and necessity for the articles and money furnished, and as to the reasonableness of the charges therefor. Demurrers, general and special, were filed by the defendant, which called in question the liability of the estate for debts created for such purposes. These demurrers were sustained and the cause was dismissed.

If such a claim can be enforced at all against an estate there can be no doubt of the sufficiency of the petition in this case. The statute provides: “If there be a plantation, manufactory or business belonging to the estate, and the disposition thereof is not specially directed by will, and, if the same be not required to be at once sold for the payment of debts, it shall be the duty of the executor or administrator to carry on the plantation, manufactory or business, or cause the same to be done, or to rent the same, as shall appear to him to be most for the interest of the estate. In coming to a determination he shall take into consideration the condition of the estate, and the necessity that may exist for future sale of such property for the payment of claims or legacies, and shall not extend the time of renting any of the...