Salter v. Salter

• Decision Date: 11 December 1884
• Docket Number: 11,438
• Citation: 98 Ind. 522
• Parties: Salter et al. v. Salter et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

98 Ind. 522

Salter et al. v. Salter et al

No. 11,438

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 11, 1884

From the Wayne Circuit Court.

A. B Young and T. J. Study, for appellants.

D. W Comstock and C. H. Burchenal, for appellees.

OPINION

Franklin C.

This is a suit upon a note and mortgage executed by Edward J. Salter to his mother, Caroline Salter, now deceased. The suit is brought by appellants, as a part of the heirs of Caroline, against the maker of the note and mortgage, and certain other heirs who refused to be joined as plaintiffs.

The note and mortgage bear date July 1st, 1862, and are due in one year thereafter. A demurrer was sustained to the complaint, and judgment rendered for the defendant. The error complained of is the sustaining of the demurrer.

The complaint, after alleging the execution of the note and mortgage, substantially alleges that said Caroline Salter died on the 22d day of July, 1869, intestate; that one of the heirs, William H. Salter, died intestate since the death of his mother, leaving a widow and certain children; that no letters of administration were ever issued upon the estate of said Caroline, and that there were no debts or liabilities existing against said estate; that no letters of administration were ever issued upon the estate of the said William H. Salter; that on the petition of his widow his estate was declared worth less than $ 500, and all his estate was by the court decreed to said widow; that all of the heirs of both Caroline Salter and William H. Salter, and the husband of Caroline and the widow of William, were made parties to this suit.

The first objection urged against the complaint is that the heirs can not collect a debt coming to an estate of a deceased person; that there must be an administrator appointed and suit brought in his name.

It has been repeatedly held by this court, that where there are no debts against an estate, the heirs may collect debts coming to the estate without an administrator. See the cases of Martin v. Reed, 30 Ind. 218; Walpole v. Bishop, 31 Ind. 156; Bearss v. Montgomery, 46 Ind. 544; Mitchell v. Dickson, 53 Ind. 110; Schneider v. Piessner, 54 Ind. 524; Ferguson v. Barnes, 58 Ind. 169; Moore v. Board, etc., 59 Ind. 516; Westerfield v. Spencer, 61 Ind. 339; Church v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. R. Co., 70 Ind. 161; Waltz v. Waltz, 84 Ind. 403.

While these cases fully establish the doctrine that where a person dies intestate, leaving no widow, and no debts or liabilities exist against his estate, the heirs may maintain a suit to collect a debt coming to the estate; that it belongs to them. Still, appellee insists that these cases, in so far as they so hold, are wrong, and ought to be overruled. We see no necessity for incurring additional expenses of administration in such cases, and no good reason for overruling these cases; but, upon the contrary, think they are right, and ought to be followed and adhered to.

It is further insisted by appellee that there should have been an administrator of the estate of ...