Smith v. Haire

• Decision Date: 19 October 1917
• Citation: 197 S.W. 678
• Parties: SMITH et al. v. HAIRE et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

197 S.W. 678

SMITH et al. v. HAIRE et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 19, 1917.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Monroe County; Foss H. Mercer, Chancellor.

Suit by Joe J. Smith and others against Bettie Humes Haire and others. From a judgment for complainants, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

D. C. Young and Dora E. Young, both of Sweetwater, and J. C. Wilburn, of Knoxville, for Joe J. Smith et al. Green, Webb & Tate, of Knoxville, and McCroskey & Peace, of Madisonville, for Bettie Humes Haire et al.

LANSDEN, J.

This suit was brought by certain attorneys to recover their fees for services rendered in the contest of the will of J. T. M. Haire, deceased. There is no question made as to the amount of the fees claimed, nor as to the fact of proper services having been rendered by the attorneys. The question presented is whether the attorneys for the successful contestants of a will are entitled to payment of their fees out of the estate as part of the expenses of administration.

A brief statement of the case is that Mr. Haire died in July, 1912, leaving two paper writings purporting to be his last will and testament. One of them named the widow as executrix and the sole beneficiary of the estate of the testator. The other one gave certain properties therein mentioned to the widow for life and remainder to the heirs at law of the testator. The widow propounded the first will, and a contest thereof was instituted by the heirs at law, among other things, upon the ground that the will was procured by fraud and undue influence of the widow. These questions were submitted to the court and jury, who found against the will, and upon appeal the case was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. This court affirmed the action of the Court of Civil Appeals in an oral opinion. Later the case was before this court upon the claim of the widow for her attorneys' fees in defending the will. These fees were disallowed upon the ground that the widow was responsible for the fraud and undue influence which vitiated the will in her favor and did not propound it in good faith. Smith v. Haire, 133 Tenn. 343, 181 S. W. 161, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 527.

Expenses of this kind are not debts of the decedent. They are expenses incurred in the administration of the estate. This is true both as to compensation of executors, administrators, and their attorneys, and other persons who render services for the benefit of the estate. 18 Cyc. 443, 445. So it has been held that an executor who propounds a will for probate is entitled to his costs and attorneys' fees whether the will is set up or not. Lassiter v. Travis, 98 Tenn. 330, 39 S. W. 226; Douglass v. Baber, 15 Lea (83 Tenn.) 665; Smith v. Harrison, 49 Tenn. (2 Heisk.) 230; Bowden v. Higgs, 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 346; Cornwell v. Cornwell, 30 Tenn. (11 Humph.) 487; and in Smith v. Haire, supra, the element of good faith upon the part of the executor in propounding the will for probate was superadded.

The defendant as executrix propounded the fraudulent will by the terms of which she would have obtained the entire estate of the testator. If the contest had not been instituted, the real will of the testator would have been defeated, and his estate would have passed to one for whom it was not intended. The attorneys, seeking...