State ex rel. Reyburn v. Ruggles
| Decision Date | 31 October 1854 |
| Citation | 20 Mo. 99 |
| Parties | THE STATE, TO THE USE OF REYBURN et al., Appellants, v. RUGGLES, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. In an action by legatees against an administrator upon his bond, judgment should be entered for the penalty of the bond, with an award of a single execution for the damages assessed for the breaches. Distribution of the damages among those entitled, is to be made after they are collected and brought into court.
2. Where one of several legatees sues the administrator upon his bond for waste, his legacy is not, as a matter of course, to be satisfied out of the damages recovered, to the exclusion of the other legatees or to the exclusion of creditors.
3. Judgment reversed for an insufficient finding of the facts.
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court.
This was an action brought to the use of three of the legatees of Joseph Reyburn, deceased, against Ruggles and his securities, upon his bond as Reyburn's administrator. The breach complained of was, that Ruggles had failed to use proper diligence to collect two judgments recovered in favor of the estate by a former administrator, for an amount exceeding the unpaid balance of the plaintiffs' legacies, and that the amount of said judgments was lost to the estate by reason of his negligence. The plaintiffs prayed judgment for the penalty of the bond, with an award of execution for an amount sufficient to pay their legacies in full. The answer denied any want of diligence on the part of the administrator. The record showed that the cause was heard by the court without a jury, but contained no finding of the facts other than the amount for which the administrator was liable, and a statement from which it appeared that there were other legatees under the will of Reyburn besides the plaintiffs. The court declared the law to be that, as the amount recovered against Ruggles was insufficient to satisfy all the legacies, the plaintiffs could only recover their pro rata share. Judgment was accordingly given for the penalty of the bond, with an award of several executions in favor of each of the plaintiffs for their pro rata share of the damages assessed. The plaintiffs, claiming that they were entitled to the full amount of their legacies out of the damages recovered before the other legatees received anything, appealed to this court.
M. Frissell, for appellants, referred to the 5th, 7th and 8th sections of article 7 of the administration act. (R. C. 1845.)
No brief or appearance for respondent.
This is a singular proceeding. It appears that there has been a judgment against Ruggles. The record does not show that he contests the propriety of that judgment. But persons who are no parties to the proceedings on which the judgment, is obtained, interpose, by motion, to have the judgment, in part, entered in their favor. There is no warrant in law for this. The judgment should have been entered for the penalty of the bond, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Goldsmith
...Association v. Paulus et al., 80 Mo. App. 36; State ex rel. and to the Use of Macke v. Randolph et al., 186 S.W. 590; State to Use of Rayburn v. Russell, 20 Mo. 99; State ex rel. Cochran v. Cooper, 79 Mo. 464; State to Use of Heye v. Frank, 22 Mo. App. 46; State ex rel. Owen v. Hollenbeck, ......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Goldsmith
...Loan Association v. Paulus et al., 80 Mo.App. 36; State ex rel. and to the Use of Macke v. Randolph et al., 186 S.W. 590; State to Use of Rayburn v. Russell, 20 Mo. 99; State ex rel. Cochran v. Cooper, 79 Mo. State to Use of Heye v. Frank, 22 Mo.App. 46; State ex rel. Owen v. Hollenbeck, 68......
-
The State ex rel. Ford v. Ellison
...Co., 245 Mo. 350; Cochran v. Ry. Co., 113 Mo. 364; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Schuchan, 189 Mo. 468; Wand v. Ryan, 166 Mo. 646; State to use v. Ruggles, 20 Mo. 100. (2) decision is a holding that the city council cannot vary the form of bond required by ordinance to protect the city where a ......
-
Turner v. Lord
... ... damage proved. Sedgwick Dam. [6 Ed.] 387, 397; State v ... Ruggles, 20 Mo. 99; State v. Cooper, 79 Mo ... 464. Judgment for ... on Meas. of Dam. [6 Ed.] 487 ... But it was said in State ex rel. v ... Sandusky, 46 Mo. 377, the general principle is, that in ... ...