Scruggs v. Heiskell

• Decision Date: 17 October 1895
• Citation: 32 S.W. 386,95 Tenn. 455
• Parties: SCRUGGS et al. v. HEISKELL.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

32 S.W. 386

95 Tenn. 455

SCRUGGS et al. v. HEISKELL.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 17, 1895

Appeal from chancery court, Monroe county; T. M. Connell Chancellor.

Suit by Margaret C. Scruggs and another against J. M. Heiskell administrator. From a decree in favor of defendant plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

P. B Mayfield and McCroskey & Pearce, for complainants.

Young & Young and Hunt & Kniser, for defendant.

CALDWELL J.

In June, 1888, Mrs. Mary W. Heiskell, a widow lady, died, intestate, at her residence in Monroe county, leaving Margaret C. Scruggs and J. M. Heiskell, her children, as her only heirs and disributees. In July, 1889, her son, J. M. Heiskell, obtained letters of administration upon her estate, and in July, 1891, he made what purported to be a final settlement of the estate in the county court. Thereafter, in May, 1892, Margaret C. Scruggs, the daughter, and her husband filed the bill in this cause, to surcharge and falsify that settlement, and for a general account of the matters of administration. The administrator answered the bill, insisting upon the correctness of his settlement, and denying the right of complainants to any relief against him. In the progress of the cause, the defendant demanded and was granted a jury to try certain issues of fact, made up and submitted under the direction of the court. Mill. & V. Code, § 5218. The jury found all the issues so submitted in favor of the defendant, and the chancellor, hearing the cause finally, pronounced a decree for the defendant, "in accordance with the verdict," as to all matters involved in the issues submitted to the jury; and, with respect to two small matters of interest not so involved, he pronounced a decree in favor of the complainants. Not being satisfied with the decree, the complainants have appealed to this court, and here assail as erroneous the action of the chancellor in failing to charge the defendant with the two promissory notes, for $700 and $413, respectively, which he executed to his intestate in her lifetime.

The defendant admitted that he executed the two notes in question, but averred that his mother, before her death, made a gift of the former to his wife and of the latter to himself, for reasons stated. Whether or not the gifts were so made was a question submitted to the jury in issues 3 and 4 and the jury responded in the affirmative as to both notes. That response of the jury has the "same...