Titterington v. Hooker

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HOUGH
• Citation: Titterington v. Hooker, 58 Mo. 593 (Mo. 1875)
• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Parties: JAMES TITTERINGTON, Adm'r, Plaintiff in Error, v. EUGENE HOOKER, et al., Defendants in Error.

58 Mo. 593

JAMES TITTERINGTON, Adm'r, Plaintiff in Error,

v.EUGENE HOOKER, et al., Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1875.

Error to Laclede Circuit Court.

Massey, McAfee & Phelps, for Plaintiff in Error.

I. An estate by descent renders the heir liable for the debts of his ancestor to the value of the property descended, and he holds the land subject to the payment of the ancestor's debts. (Metcalf vs. Smith's heirs, 40 Mo., 572; 4 Kent. Com. [12th Ed.], 419; Van Weazel vs. Wycoff, 3 Sandf. Ch., 528; Thompson vs. Brown, 4 John. Ch., 619; Clark vs. Hugh, 52 Ill., 427; 2 Spence Eq., 388.)

. C. Young, R. P. Bland & G. W. Bradfield, for Defendants in Error.

I. It is manifest upon the face of the petition that plaintiff had an adequate and ample remedy at law. (Wagn. Stat., 100, § 47.) All he had to do was to call the attention of the Probate Court of Laclede County to the allowance of his demand, and the classification thereof, and show that the personal estate was insufficient to discharge the debts of decedent and the court would have ordered the sale of the real estate; or he could have forced the administrator to make application to the Probate Court for the sale of the real estate of decedent. (Wagn. Stat., 96, §§ 23, 24.)

A court of equity will not entertain jurisdiction for the purpose of enabling the creditors of an estate to collect their demands from the administrator of such intestate, when the remedy at law is ample and adequate. (Peas vs. Scranton, 11 Ga., 33; Trustees, etc. vs. Robins, 19 Ga., 134.)

II. The petition shows a final settlement of the estate, from which the plaintiff failed to appeal--hence, he cannot now complain. (Picot, Adm'r vs. Bates, 47 Mo., 390; Dullard, Adm'r vs. Hardy, 47 Mo., 403; Murray vs. Roberts, 48 Mo., 307; Barton vs. Barton, 35 Mo., 158.)

HOUGH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This cause was heard at the November term, 1872, of the Laclede Circuit Court, on a demurrer to the following petion:

Plaintiff states that he is the administrator of the estate of Lemuel Elam, deceased, late of said county, and that letters of administration were duly granted him by the County Court of said county, and that the defendants, Eugene Hooker and Eunice Hooker, are the heirs at law, and only heirs at law, of W. A. Hooker, deceased, late of said Laclede county, who died intestate, and as such heirs at law they are the owners in fee simple, subject to the dower of their mother, of the following described real estate situated in said county, viz: The south-west quarter of the south-west quarter, and the north-east quarter of the south-west quarter, and the west half of lots one and two of the north-east quarter, and the north-west quarter of the south-east quarter, all in section number four (4,) township number thirty-four (34,) range number sixteen (16,) west of the fifth principal meridian; and which said real estate descended to them from the said Wm. A. Hooker, deceased, who was their father; and that the defendants now are, and for a long time past have been in possession of said real estate.

Plaintiff states that letters of administration were duly granted by the County Court of Laclede county on the estate of said W. A. Hooker, deceased, to one C. B. Churchill, and that some time after the expiration of three years after the grant of letters of administration as aforesaid, the said estate was reported by the said administrator as settled, and his account as such administrator was closed by the Probate Court of said county, and he discharged from his administration.

Plaintiff further states that said Lemuel Elam, in his life-time, obtained a judgment against the administrator of said Wm. A. Hooker in the Circuit Court of Laclede county, Mo., for the sum of $519 75 debt, and $280 08 damages and costs of suit; and that after the death of said Hooker, and after letters of administration were granted on his estate, said judgment of the Circuit Court was exhibited at the said County Court for allowance and classification, and that the same was allowed for a large sum, viz: $902 17, and was classed in the fourth class of demands; and plaintiff states that said judgment so allowed by the said County Court is still in full force, and that neither the same, nor any part thereof, has been paid or satisfied by the administrator of said Hooker, deceased, nor by any one else; and plaintiff further states the administrator of the said Hooker did not pay any part of said judgment or allowance, although ordered to pay off the demands established against Hooker's estate; and he is informed and so believes that all the personal property of the said Wm. A. Hooker which came to the hands of this said administrator was exhausted and disposed of in paying the demands against said estate, and in defraying the expenses of administration.

Plaintiff charges that said Churchill, who was administrator of the estate of Wm. A. Hooker, deceased, is insolvent, and that he has no adequate relief at law. Plaintiff therefore prays the court to render judgment in his favor for the amount of said judgment or allowance, established as aforesaid against the estate of said Hooker, deceased, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent., the “plaintiff averring that rate of interest was the rate of interest of the demand upon which judgment was rendered, and for the costs of proceedings in the Circuit Court aforesaid adjudged against the defendant in that suit,” and that if said judgment shall not be paid that the same shall be levied of the aforesaid real estate, or so much thereof as shall be necessary to satisfy said judgment and costs of suit, and for other proper and suitable relief.

The demurrer states the following grounds of objection: 1st. That said petition contains no equity, and alleges no matter which entitles plaintiff to any equitable relief, and does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; 2nd. That it is manifest upon the face of said petition that plaintiff has an ample and adequate remedy at law, which he is now at liberty to pursue, or which by his own laches and neglect he has failed to pursue in the proper time and appropriate way.

The question presented for determination in this case is whether, under our law, on a failure of personal assets and after final settlement, a bill in equity will lie on behalf of a creditor of an intestate against his heirs to whom lands have descended from him, to have such lands sold to satisfy the demands of such creditor. Whenever real estate is by statute made liable for the payments of the debts of the deceased, it constitutes legal assets, (1 Sto. Eq., § 552, Ed. 1873,) and it has...