Sherman, Adm v. Jerome
Decision Date | 07 February 1887 |
Citation | 30 L.Ed. 680,120 U.S. 319,7 S.Ct. 577 |
Parties | SHERMAN, ADM'r, etc., and others v. JEROME and another, Ex'rs, etc |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Geo. W. Miller, for appellants.
J. H. McGowan and Benton Hanchett, for appellees.
In 1872, Sarah E. Little, then a resident of Perry, Wyoming county, New York, died at that place, leaving a last will and testament, executed August 30, 1872, and a codicil thereto, executed September 9, 1872. The will, after giving sundry money legacies, proceeded as follows: By subsequent articles other money legacies were given, and then followed these articles: On the twenty-fourth of December, 1881, the present suit in equity was brought, in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan, by Charles A. W. Sherman, as administrator of Charlotte Sherman, deceased, Maria Cameron, James Sherman, and Sarah E. Morse, against David H. Jerome and Charles W. Grant. The bill sets out the foregoing provisions of Little's will, and states these facts: Charles A. W. Sherman is the C. A. W. Sherman named in the will. Charlotte Sherman was his wife, and died in May, 1880, and he was appointed her administrator in December, 1881. In January, 1873, the will of Little was proved before the surrogate of Wyoming county, New York, and letters testamentary were issued to Page, named in it as executor. In March, 1873, letters testamentary on the will of Little were issued by the probate court for Saginaw county, Michigan, to Grant and Jerome. in New York, and Grant and Jerome, in Michigan, entered upon their duties as executors. In New York, Little left property not exceeding a few hundred dollars in amount, which went into the hands of Page, and was used in defraying funeral expenses, leaving nothing in his hands with which to pay the legacies. Little left a large real and personal estate in Saginaw county, Michigan, which came into the hands ofG rant and Jerome, as executors, and they have now in their hands a greater amount of the estate than is sufficient to pay to the plaintiffs their legacies and to pay all the other legacies. Grant and Jerome paid to Charlotte Sherman the interest on the $4,000 down to April 1, 1876; but nothing more has been paid on the legacies to the plaintiffs. Maria Cameron, Sarah E. Morse, and James Sherman were living at the time of the death of Charlotte Sherman, and are still living. The bill prays for an accounting by the defendants, as executos, and for the payment to the plaintiffs of the amounts due to them for the legacies.
The answer admits that a part of the estate left by Little in Michigan came into the hands of Grant, and a part into the hands of Jerome. It avers that, aside from the Coats bond and mortgage hereafter mentioned, Grant has none of the estate now in his hands, and Jerome has $9,621.75, including any fees, commissions, or compensation for his services. Accounts of receipts and disbursements by each defendant, as executor, are annexed to the answer. It then sets forth that the defendants believed it to be their duty to set apart and invest, out of the estate, $4,000, the interest of which, as they should be able to collect it, should be paid to Charlotte Sherman during her life-time, and the principal be retained by them in such investment, and, after her decease, be paid over to Maria Cameron, Sarah E. Morse, and James Sherman; that, for that purpose, they took out of the estate and set apart a bond executed by one Coats to Little, in the penalty of $10,000, dated May 1, 1869, conditioned to pay $1,000 May 1, 1871, $1,000 May 1, 1872, and $3,000 May 1, 1873, with interest annually on all sums unpaid at 10 per cent., and a mortgage given to secure the bond, bearing the same date, executed by Coats to Little, mortgaging a parcel of land in East Saginaw, Saginaw county, Michigan, and recorded in the office of the register of deeds for Saginaw county; that, to set apart the bond and mortgage, they, on the twentieth of October, 1874, executed and acknowledged the following instrument in writing, which was recorded in the office of said register of deeds on the same day:
'Whereas, by the last will and testament of Sarah E. Little, the interest of sum of four thousand dollars is bequeathed to Charlotte Sherman for her life, and upon her decease the said sum of four thousand dollars is to be divided between parties therein named; and whereas, among the assets of the estate of said Sarah E. Little is a bond and mortgage made by Alice L. Coats to said Sarah E. Little, dated May 1, 1869, for the sum of five thousand dollars, on which there is now due four thousand dollars, and which mortgage is recorded in the office of the register of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Truesdale Hosp.
...9 Metc. 525, 534;Miller v. Congdon, 14 Gray, 114, 117;Hobbs v. Cunningham, 273 Mass. 529, 534, 174 N. E. 181;Sherman v. Jerome, 120 U. S. 319, 7 S. Ct. 577, 30 L. Ed. 680. The latter requirement has so hardened that ordinarily nothing short of a paying over of the legacy, shown by an accoun......
- Upton v. Santa Rita Mining Co.Santa Rita Mining Co. v. Upton.
- Upton v. Santa Rita Min. Co.
-
Hobbs v. Cunningham
...Allen, 277;Welch v. Boston, 211 Mass. 178, 181, 97 N. E. 893;Sears v. Nahant, 215 Mass. 329, 331, 102 N. E. 494;Sherman v. Jerome, 120 U. S. 319, 326, 7 S. Ct. 577, 30 L. Ed. 680. An examination of the evidence does not disclose that the administrator before the date of the accident perform......