Thompson v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 14 January 1920
• Docket Number: No. 2491.,2491.
• Citation: 217 S.W. 863
• Parties: THOMPSON v. THOMPSON et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

217 S.W. 863

THOMPSON v. THOMPSON et al.

No. 2491.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 14, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Howell County; E. P. Dorris, Judge.

Suit by Birdie K. Thompson, administratrix of the estate of J. B. Thompson, deceased, against Commodore D. Thompson and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

O. L. Haydon, of West Plains, for appellants.

W. N. Evans, of West Plains, for respondent.

STURGIS, P. J.

This suit is unusual. It is a proceeding in equity instituted in the circuit court of Howell county,.Mo., by plaintiff as the administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, J. B. Thompson, against the children and heirs of said deceased, asking the circuit court to enter a decree allowing the plaintiff to take credit for the various items and amounts set forth in the petition and directing the probate court of said county to allow same as credits in the final settlement of said estate in such probate court. The petition recites that plaintiff was duly appointed and qualified as administratrix of said estate on October 14, 1913, and proceeded to administer same by taking into her possession all the personal property of said estate and "disposed of same according to law" amounting to $4,130.10. The petition then alleges:

"Plaintiff further says that at the time she became such administratrix and since that time the estate of J. B. Thompson was and became indebted to various persons, including plaintiff, in divers sums and items, and that, being ignorant of the law, plaintiff did not know that it was necessary that each of said claims or demands be presented and allowed by the probate judge of said county in order that said claims and demands should be a legal charge against said estate; but acting in good faith and believing that she had a right to do so she adjusted and paid such items to the various parties who held such claims and paid the expenses and costs of administration and preservation of the property belonging to said estate in the aggregate of about forty-eight hundred ($4,800.00) dollars, with the advice and consent of defendants, using her individual property and allowances from said estate set apart to her by the probate court in the payment of such claims and demands and costs and expense of administration." (Italics ours.)

An itemized statement is then set forth showing the amounts so paid by plaintiff and dates of payment. Plaintiff then alleges that—

"Each and all the above items constitute a legal demand against the estate of J. B. Thompson, deceased, and are legitimate charges for expenses of administration and for taking care of and the preservation of said estate."

The prayer is that—

The court "allow plaintiff to take credit for the items set out in this petition, and that they be allowed her in a final settlement in said estate and for such other and further relief as the court may deem proper."

After an unsuccessful demurrer and motion to make definite and certain, the defendants answered and went to trial.

The trial court found for plaintiff as to most of the items of the petition and entered judgment decreeing that plaintiff as administratrix be and she is allowed to take credit in her final settlement of said estate for said items, credits, and charges constituting legal demands and equitable liens against said estate amounting to $3,650.87. The defendants have appealed.

We are satisfied that the judgment must be reversed. The record discloses that many of the items for which the administratrix asks to be allowed to take credit in her final settlement are debts contracted by the deceased in his lifetime and are demands against the estate which could and should have been established either by proceeding in the probate court, section 198, R. S. 1909, or in the circuit court, section 197, R. S. 1909. These sections contemplate an adjudication by a proper court before payment out of the funds of the estate at which adjudication the administrator of the estate is an adverse party to the claimant. By express provision of the statutes section 230, R. S. 1909, the administrator or executor cannot be allowed credit for money of the estate paid out on such claims unless same have been "allowed by the court according to law." The law is well settled that under this statute an administrator cannot take credit in a final settlement for a claim paid with funds of the estate unless such claim has been previously adjudicated and allowed by a proper court, and this is true though such claim is just and proper and evidence of that fact is produced at the time of the settlement. Springfield Grocer Co. v. Walton, 95 Mo. App. 526, 69 S. W. 477; Langston v. Canterbury, 173 Mo. 122, 73 S. W. 151; Dockery v. Sparks, 170 Mo. App. 651, 157 S. W. 365; Dockery v. Sparks, 192 S. W. 86. The Court of Appeals in Dockery v. Sparks, supra, said:

"The statutes provide a plan for a practical adjudication of demands of creditors against the estates of deceased, persons, and the Legislature in the amendment of 1889 doubtless intended to make this plan exclusive and to put a stop to the somewhat general practice of executors and administrators paying demands at their own discretion."

The fact that plaintiff as administratrix of this estate was ignorant of the law on this subject and did not know as she alleges and testifies, that it was necessary that each claim be presented to and allowed by the probate court in order to become a legal charge against the estate, and that she acted in good faith in paying off just claims, is no excuse for not complying with the law's requirements. While not so announced in explicit terms in the case cited, it is apparent that all the cases...