Richmond v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 03 February 1898
• Citation: 71 Minn. 453,73 N.W. 1099
• Parties: RICHMOND v CAMPBELL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

71 Minn. 453

73 N.W. 1099

RICHMONDvCAMPBELL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 3, 1898.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A special administrator, appointed under Gen. St. 1894, § 4483, and whose powers and duties are defined by sections 4484, 4485, and 4486, is not authorized to sue for and recover goods and chattels which may have been fraudulently conveyed by the deceased in his lifetime, although there may be a deficiency of assets to pay his debts.

Appeal from district court, Stearns county; D. B. Searle, Judge.

Action by E. C. Richmond, special administrator of Reuben A. Richmond, deceased, against J. E. Campbell. Finding for defendant. From an order refusing a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Welch, Hayne & Hubachek, Geo. H. Reynolds, and John B. Atwater, for appellant.

D. W. Burckhart and Calhoun & Bennett, for respondent.

BUCK, J.

Several questions are raised by the appellant, and the disposition of any one of them against him leads to an affirmance of the order of the trial court; hence the only question which we shall discuss is the one involving the right of the special administrator to maintain this action. Briefly stated, the facts are these: Reuben A. Richmond, the brother of the plaintiff, died intestate, leaving certain personal property, such as is usually kept in a drug store, upon which he had given a chattel mortgage to the defendant, Campbell, for $2,200, for the purchase price of said property. Richmond continued to carry on the business of a druggist after giving such mortgage, selling and replenishing the stock from time to time, but died several months after the mortgage was so given to Campbell, leaving debts to the amount of about $350, without assets to pay the same, except such as was included in the Campbell mortgage. For some unexplained reason there was delay in appointing a general administrator, and thereupon this plaintiff was appointed special administrator of the Richmond estate, and as such he brought this action of replevin to recover all the goods and property so mortgaged, alleging that the same was given by Richmond and taken by Campbell with intent to defraud the creditors of said Richmond, both then existing and those who should subsequently become so. The defendant challenges the right of the special administrator to maintain this action. The plaintiff contends that under Gen. St. 1894, §§ 4506, 4508, 4483, 4484, he has such right. Section 4506 authorizes the executor or general administrator, in case of a deficiency of assets in the hands of such executor or general administrator, to sue for and recover all goods, chattels,...