Turner v. Shuffler

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Merrimon
• Citation: Turner v. Shuffler, 108 N. C. 642, 13 S. E. 243 (N.C. 1891)
• Decision Date: 19 May 1891
• Parties: Turner v. Shuffler et al.

13 S.E. 243

108 N.C. 642

Turner

v.Shuffler et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 19, 1891.

Sale of Decedent's Land—Claims against Decedent's Estate—Limitations—Plea of Statute—Payment by Administrator Out of His Own Funds—Subrogation.

1. Where, in proceedings to set aside an administrator's sale because made indirectly to the administrator, the referee finds that the sale was not in fact so made, but that it was bona fide, and that the purchaser, after paying a fair price, and taking a proper deed, then conveyed the property to the administrator, such finding will not be reviewed on appeal if there was any evidence to warrant it, and if the sale was approved.

2. Where an administrator, being in doubt as to what is properly assets in his hands, inadvertently pays some of the debts of his intestate out of his own funds, he does not thereby become an intermeddler, but is entitled to subrogation to the rights of those creditors whose claims he has paid.

3. Under Code N. C. § 164, providing that, if claims against a decedent's estate are filed within a year after appointment of the administrator, and allowed, it shall not be necessary to bring suit thereon to prevent a bar, claims filed within the year will not be barred by subsequent lapse of time pending the administration, and the statute of limitations cannot be pleaded against them.

4. An answer which pleads the seven-year statute of limitations as a bar to claims of creditors against decedent's estate, without alleging definitely that proceedings were not begun, as required by section 153, subsec. 2, within seven years after the appointment of the administrator, is insufficient; and, although the court might have allowed an amendment, its refusal to do so will not be reviewed.

Appeal from superior court, Burke county; Hoke, Judge.

It appears that Christopher Shuffler died intestate in the county of Burke before the 9th day of August, 1877, and that on that day the plaintiff was duly appointed and qualified as administrator of his estate; that his personal estate was of little value; that the debts against his estate aggregated several hundred dollars; that the plaintiff applied for and obtained a license to sell certain real estate of his intestate called the "Mill Property, " to make assets to pay debts; that this land was sold, and the proceeds of the sale were duly applied as assets to the payment of debts; that other debts remain tin-paid; and the present is a special proceeding to obtain a license to sell another tract of land of the intestate to make additional assets to pay such unpaid debts. The defendants, heirs of the intestate, deny the material allegations of the complaint. They allege that the alleged unpaid claims are not just, and that they are barred by the statute of limitations. They further allege that the sale of the land by the plaintiff first above mentioned was void, upon the ground that the plaintiff himself in effect bought the same at his own sale. By consent of parties it was ordered by the court that all matters in controversy between them be referred to a referee named, to take testimony and report to the court the facts and the law arising thereon. The referee took evidence, took and stated an account, reported the same and his findings of fact. To the same the defendants filed divers exceptions, some of which were sustained, and others were overruled by the court. The referee, among other things, found that the claims against the estate of the intestate specified in the account were "presented to the administrator and payment demanded within twelve months from the date of his qualification as administrator, and that he told the creditors that if they would not sue on their claims he would pay all just claims as soon as he had assets in hand sufficient, and that he would not plead the statute of limitations against debts." The defendants' exceptions overruled were these: "(3) That referee's finding that Turner went strictly according to law in the sale of the mill property finds no support whatever in the evidence shown him on the trial, and is in direct conflict with a long train of judicial decisions in this and all the states that an administrator must not buy, directly or indirectly, at his own sale. (4) That the referee erred in omitting to find the plea of the three-year statute of limitations pleaded by the defendants in bar of the plaintiff administrator's right to reimbursement for debts of his intestate paid by him, as he alleged, three years before the commencement of this action, in favor of defendants; and likewise error is alleged in the refusal of the referee to permit defendants to make their former plea of the seven-year statute of limitations (Code, § 153, subsec. 2) more specific in an amended answer tendered by them, and refused by the referee at the hearing of this cause." In the case settled for this court the court says: "Third exception overruled, and report sustained, and the court finds that the sale was bona tide, and for fair value, to Galloway, and bought by Turner from him; and, if otherwise, cannot be impeached here. Fourth exception overruled." The defendants assigned as error the overruling of the ex-ceptions above set forth. There was judgment for the plaintiffs, and defendants appealed.

J. T. Perkins and W. S. Pearson, for appellants.

S. J. Ervin, for appellee.

Merrimon, C. J., (after stating the facta as above.) The order of reference was entered by consent, of the parties, and the court below, in all respects pertinent ana...