Sartor v. Newberry Land & Security Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1916
• Docket Number: 9364.
• Citation: 88 S.E. 467,104 S.C. 184
• Parties: SARTOR v. NEWBERRY LAND & SECURITY CO. ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

88 S.E. 467

104 S.C. 184

SARTOR v. NEWBERRY LAND & SECURITY CO. ET AL.

No. 9364.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 3, 1916

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Union County; S.W. G Shipp, Judge.

Action by John W. Sartor for himself, and as administrator of John Sartor, and as trustee of the estate of John Sartor, against the Newberry Land & Security Company and others. From the judgment rendered, the plaintiff and the defendants the Glenn Lowry Manufacturing Company, the William Coleman Company, the C. H. Cooper Company, and the Sumner Bros. Company appeal. Reversed and remanded.

P. D Barron, J. A. Sawyer, and J. C. Wallace, all of Union, for appellants.

FRASER J.

John Sartor was in possession of two tracts of land. Of one he was a mere tenant. Of the other he was in possession under a contract to purchase. He was farming both places, and managing about a 20-horse farm. The contract to purchase allowed John to pay a little over $1,200 per year for three years as rent; that, if John made these yearly payments, then in January, 1911, the grantor (the Newberry Land & Security Company) would convey the land to John at $7,000, but would allow him a credit for one-third of the purchase money from these annual payments, and take his notes, secured by a mortgage of the land, for the unpaid two-thirds; that, if John failed to pay these annual installments (called rent) then the payments so made would remain rent, and the contract would terminate, and all that had been paid would be forfeited. In the spring of 1910 John died, and his son, John W. Sartor, was duly appointed administrator of his father's estate. The administrator made the 1910 payment on the contract from the "net proceeds of the crop." John left two minor children. The administrator then went into court, making the heirs at law, as such, and the Newberry Land & Security Company, parties, alleging that there were unpaid debts of the estate which were secured by the mortgages, but, if there was a forced sale, there was not enough of personal assets to pay the debts; that on account of the minority of some of the heirs proper security for the balance of the purchase money of the land could not be given; that the Newberry Land & Security Company were willing to carry out their contract with John Sartor, and asking that John W. Sartor be appointed trustee to receive the title, carry on the business, mortgage the property, etc. By a consent decree the arrangement was allowed. Under this arrangement the trustee was allowed to manage the estate as he pleased, make all the debts he could, and pledge the property for its payment, repay these debts, and turn over the surplus to himself as administrator for the payment of the debts of John Sartor and distribution among the heirs. The creditors of John remained quiet. The trustee managed the estate and made debts. After the affairs had gone on for a while, some of the creditors of John brought suit, and then John W., the trustee and administrator, brought suit to settle the estate, and enjoined other proceedings. The case was referred to the master to report his conclusions of law and of fact. To this report all parties excepted. The circuit judge overruled the exceptions and affirmed the master's report. From his judgment, this appeal is taken.

There are 26 exceptions, but neither of the appellants undertake to argue them separately. One of the appellants reduces the exceptions to three, and we think they cover the points at issue.

I. Were the creditors of John Sartor bound by the proceedings by which John W. Sartor was appointed trustee? They were not. We know of no case and no principle of law by which they can be bound. They were not parties. There was no creditor as such, nor a representative of the creditors who were made parties. It is said some of the children were creditors. They were not made parties as creditors, but as heirs at law. It is said that the Newberry Land & Security Company was a creditor. John's estate at the time of the commencement of that suit owed them nothing, and did not become a creditor until after the suit had ended and the notes and mortgage executed. It is said that the administrator was their representative. In some cases the administrator might be held to represent creditors, but not here.

A moment's...