Syme v. Badger
Decision Date | 28 February 1885 |
Citation | 92 N.C. 706 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | A. SYME, Administrator, et als v. THOMAS BADGER, Administrator, et als. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CIVIL ACTION, heard on exceptions to the report of a referee, before Avery, Judge, at February Term, 1884, of WAKE Superior Court.
There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
Messrs. J. W. Hinsdale, Battle & Mordecai and John Devereux, Jr., for the plaintiffs .
Messrs. Gatling & Whitaker, for the defendants .
George E. Badger died in the year 1866, having, in October, 1859, made his will duly attested and in form to pass his real and personal estate, to which, in December, 1860, he annexed a codicil similarly executed, which his surviving widow, Delia Badger, nominated sole executrix, caused to be proved in the proper court and letters testamentary to issue to her.
The provisions of the will, so far as they are pertinent to the inquiries which the appeal requires us to make, and contained in the first and second clauses thereof, are as follows:
In the first place--“In the marriage settlement between my wife and myself, made just before our marriage, mention is made of bonds amounting to the sum of $15,119, but on ascertaining the state of accounts between her and the late Alfred Alston, who was executor of General Williams, and had acted as her agent, this sum was found subject to a deduction of $1,419, due him, so that the net amount receivable thereon was but $13,660. To this are to be added a sum received of hers from the Clerk of the Supreme Court in a suit in equity, and other sums amounting to about $1,500, making the sum for which I am accountable to her, $15,160.
Out of this I have purchased for her, and at her request, negro woman Catharine, at the price of $650; also, I have purchased the part of lot No. two hundred and ten (210), on which my office stands, of Thomas D. Hogg and George W. Mordecai for the price of $800, the residue of the said lot having belonged to her before our marriage and being embraced in our marriage settlement, leaving the sum of $13,710 to be otherwise accounted for. I have made investments in the stock of the Bank of the State and the Bank of Cape Fear, sometimes at some advance on the nominal value of the shares, and also in bonds. Of the stock, forty shares in the Bank of Cape Fear were subscribed and now stand in the name of my wife, and will, of course, be hers without any bequest from me.
Now, therefore, in payment and discharge of what I do owe to my wife, I devise and bequeath to her, her heirs, executors and administrators, sixty shares of stock standing in my name in the Bank of Cape Fear, besides and in addition to the said forty shares, the portion of the said lot No. 210, in the city of Raleigh, purchased by me of the said Hogg and Mordecai, and three thousand seven hundred dollars in cash or bonds.”
Secondly:--
Upon the coming in of the answer, an order of reference with consent of parties was entered at January Term, 1880, and the appointed referee directed to “take and state an account of the assets and effects of the said George E. Badger, deceased, that came or ought to have come into the hands of the executrix,” &c., and what disposition has been made of them by her or her administrator, and to inquire and report to whom shall be paid such as have come or may come into the hands of the plaintiff, the administrator de bonis non, &c.
The referee proceeded to take evidence on the subject-matters of the reference, and has reported the same with his findings of fact and law, embodied in a series of accounts submitted with the report. The plaintiff filed several exceptions, most of which were sustained, and, upon a recommittal of the report, the account was reformed in accordance with the rulings of the court. The defendant's exceptions were overruled, and judgment being rendered, the defendant Thomas Badger, as administrator, appealed to this court.
The first two conclusions of law submitted by the referee and so numbered are in these words:
1. That Delia Badger, the executrix of George E. Badger, deceased, and intestate of Thomas Badger, administrator, having qualified under the will of her testator, containing a legacy stated to be in satisfaction and discharge of the debt due to her by him, thereby in law accepted and became bound by its provisions, and that she thereby waived the right to retain the amount of her debt out of the assets except as directed by the will.
2. That the plaintiffs McGehee and Haigh having never mentioned to the executrix, the matter of the legacies left to them, or made any demand on her for them, and knowing that she was applying the estate to her support, and being willing that she should do so, ought to be taken as assenting to the delay in collecting the McIlhenny and Taylor debt (originally due from one Miller), and to the consequent risk, and that the executrix ought not to be charged with the excess of the debt above the amount actually received thereon.
The defendants' exception to the referee's first conclusion was overruled. The plaintiffs excepted to the second and were sustained, whereby the estate of the intestate of the appellant is made responsible for the full nominal value of the Miller debt.
These rulings constitute the case on appeal, and in order to their being properly understood and determined, require an examination of the facts applicable to each, and as found by the referee they are contained in the sixth clause of his series of findings of fact. Upon an examination of the evidence reported, we think it fully sustains the findings of the referee, which are as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moseley v. Bogy
...19 P. 527; Estate of Frey, 52 Cal. 658); but in North Carolina the contrary is the rule (Mendenhall v. Mendenhall, 53 N.C. 287; Syme v. Badger, 92 N.C. 706). Many occur where such acts are noted as indicating an intention to elect, but are associated with other facts such as accepting a beq......
-
In re Estate of Goessling
...53 N.C. 287; Allen v. Allen, 121 N.C. 328; Treadway v. Payne, 127 N.C. 436; State ex rel. v. Holtkamp, 185 S.W. 204, 205; Syme v. Badger, 92 N.C. 706; Wood v. Trust Co., 265 Mo. 511; Stoepler v. Silberberg, 220 Mo. 271; Casles v. Gray, 159 Mo. 595; Young v. Boardman, 79 Mo. 186; Stone v. Co......
-
Lovett v. Stone
...180 N.C. 433, 104 S.E. 889; Elmore v. Byrd, 180 N.C. 120, 104 S.E. 162; Tripp v. Nobles, 136 N.C. 99, 48 S.E. 675, 67 L.R.A. 449; Syme v. Badger, 92 N.C. 706; Isler v. Isler, 88 N.C. 581; Sigmon v. Hawn, 87 N.C. 450; Weeks v. Weeks, 77 N.C. 421; Flippin v. Banner, 55 N.C. 450; McQueen v. Mc......
-
Harper v. Harper, 54632
...property under like circumstances. Turnage v. Worthington, 204 N.C. 538, 168 S.E. 823; Tayloe v. Tayloe, 108 N.C. 69, 12 S.E. 836; Syme v. Badger, 92 N.C. 706; Patterson v. Wadsworth, 89 N.C. 407; Green v. Rountree, 88 N.C. Therefore, this Court holds that a surcharge based upon per se fail......