Spire v. Lovell

• Decision Date: 31 December 1885
• Citation: 17 Ill.App. 559,17 Bradw. 559
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Parties: CLARISSA M. SPIREv.EDWARD C. LOVELL ET AL., Ex'rs, etc.

17 Ill.App. 559

17 Bradw. 559

CLARISSA M. SPIRE

v.EDWARD C. LOVELL ET AL., Ex'rs, etc.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

December Term, 1885.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ERROR to the Circuit Court of Kane county; the Hon. CHARLES KELLUM, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed December 4, 1885.

Mr. R. N. BOTSFORD, for plaintiff in error; that the expenditure for the monument should not have been allowed the executors, cited Little v. Williams, 7 Bradwell, 67; Morgan v. Morgan, 83 Ill. 196; Foley v. Bushway, 71 Ill. 386.

Mr. FRANK CROSBY and Mr. E. C. LOVELL, for defendants in error; that the expenditure for the monument should be allowed the executors, cited Ferrin v. Myrick, 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 76; Crapo v. Armstrong, Chicago Legal News, November 10, 1883; Hapgood v. Houghton, 10 Pick. 154; Wood v. Vanderburg, 6 Paige, 277; McGlinsey's Appeal, 14 Serg. and Rawle, 64.BAKER, J.

Clarissa M. Spire, plaintiff in error, filed in the County Court of Kane county exceptions to two of the items contained in the report of the executors of her deceased husband, and these exceptions were there sustained; but upon the appeal to the circuit court the judgment was otherwise as to both of said items, and the report was approved.

The action of the circuit court in allowing the charge of $210, for money expended by the executors in the erection of a tombstone at the grave of the deceased, was right. The tombstone was reasonably worth the price paid therefor, and the estate of the deceased was perfectly solvent and of the value of some $10,000, or more, over and above the few small claims there were against it. The erection of a suitable headstone at the grave of a deceased person may properly be considered as a part of his personal expenses. Where the rights of creditors are not defeated or jeopardized, and the sum expended for that purpose by the administrator or executor is not extravagant, but reasonable, in view of the station in life of the deceased and the value of the estate left by him, then such amount should be allowed as a credit on settlement of the administration. Wood v. Vanderburg, 6 Paige, 277; McGlinsey's Appeal, 14 Serg. & Rawle, 64; Porter's Estate, 77 Penn. St. 43; Fairwan's Appeal, 30 Conn. 205. In cases of such expenditures, it is advisable the administrator * * * or executor should first consult the court having probate jurisdiction, or the distributees of the estate, or both, as to the amount, if any, to be thus spent; but even where this precaution is not observed, if the sum disbursed is reasonable and appropriate under all the circumstances, and there is no danger of detriment to creditors, it is properly chargeable to the estate.

We do not regard the cases cited by plaintiff in error, as in point. In Foley, Adm'r, v. Bushway, 71 Ill. 386, the monument was furnished under a special contract made by the widow, and to which the administrator of the estate was not a party. In Morgan, Adm'r, v. Morgan, 83 Ill. 196, the monument was...