Rice v. Henly

• Decision Date: 12 March 1891
• Citation: 15 S.W. 748,90 Tenn. 69
• Parties: RICE v. HENLY et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

15 S.W. 748

90 Tenn. 69

RICE v. HENLY et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

March 12, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Sumner county; A. H. MUNFORD, Judge.

C. R Head and S. F. Wilson, for appellant.

J. J Turner and J. J. Vertrees, for appellees.

CALDWELL J.

This is an action commenced in the county court of Sumner county, by petition, to revoke and vacate letters of administration because granted more than 20 years after the death of the intestate. The defense to the petition was estoppel. This defense prevailed in the county court, but on appeal to the circuit court it was held not to be established by the proof and the prayer of the petition was granted. From that judgment there was an appeal in error to this court. Appellant, Dr. C. A. Rice, was married to Miss Julia Henly in January, 1866. While going from her house in Sumner county, Tenn., to his house in Mississippi, a steamer on which they were traveling in the Mississippi river was destroyed by an explosion of its boiler, and Mrs. Rice was drowned, February 4, 1866. On the 30th of June, 1888, about 22 years and a few months after her death. Dr. Rice was granted letters of administration on her estate by the county court of Sumner county. Seventeen months thereafter this proceeding was instituted by Henly & Carter, as executors of Mrs. Robb, a sister of Mrs. Rice. who, after the death of Mrs. Rice, had received the latter's estate, claiming it as her own under the will of their father. Mrs. Robb died, testate, only a few days before the letters of administration were granted to Dr. Rice, but some time after she had, through her attorney, advised and urged him to apply for such letters, with a view yet to be stated. W. M. Henly, a nephew of Mrs. Robb and Mrs. Rice, had brought a suit in chancery against Mrs. Robb, and recorded a decree against her for over $7,000, the same representing one-half the accounts received by her on the bequest made, in the will of her father, to her deceased brothers and sisters. That cause terminated in this court at the December term, 1877, and the opinion then delivered is reported in 86 Tenn. 474-484, 7 S.W. 190. No question was made in that case as to the rights of Dr. Rice in the estate of his deceased wife, but the controversy was alone between Mrs. Robb and W. M. Henly, on the assumption by her that she alone was entitled to all the accrued shares, and by him that he was entitled to one-half of them. Their respective contentions, and the merits of each, were considered in the opinion cited. When that cause was decided against her, and W. M. Henly was endeavoring to collect his recovery, Mrs. Robb, through an attorney, whom she employed after the decree of this court, communicated the facts of the case and the result of the litigation to Dr Rice, who still resided in Mississippi, and requested him to administer on the estate of his deceased wife, so that she (Mrs. Robb) might use his name as administrator, or he himself might take active steps in the courts to prevent W. M. Henly from collecting from her so much of said decree as represented any part of Mrs. Rice's estate. Before a final agreement was reached with Dr. Rice, Mrs. Robb died. Nevertheless, in pursuance of her desire and plan, he was qualified as administrator of his wife, Mrs. Robb's said attorney becoming one of the sureties on the administration bond. While the matter of taking out these letters was being considered, Dr. Rice's attorney mentioned the fact that more than 20 years had elapsed since the death of Mrs. Rice, and suggested that such fact stood in the way; but in response it was agreed by Mrs. Robb's attorney that no objection should at any time be interposed on that account. In all communications with Dr. Rice, however, it was expressly stated for Mrs. Robb that she still claimed the estate of Mrs. Rice in her own right and by adverse possession, and that she would concede nothing to him on that score, her only object being to defeat the collection by W. M. Henly of the decree recovered against her. In the event of success in that effort she expressed a willingness to pay Dr. Rice something for his...