Tyler v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 14 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | 8669. |
| Citation | 197 S.E. 735,120 W.Va. 232 |
| Parties | TYLER et al. v. REYNOLDS et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted March 22, 1938.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where, in the settlement of the estate of a decedent, an item of indebtedness asserted against the estate was allowed by the commissioner of accounts and subsequently approved by the county court, and, on writ of error, the county court is affirmed, the allowance of the claim stands res judicata, and the matter cannot, in a later chancery cause, be reopened on the ground of after-discovered evidence or otherwise.
2. Where, under a decedent's written guaranty of certain debts of other persons, liability was adjudicated against the estate of the guarantor, and such adjudication was not challenged in the county court nor, on writ of error, in either the circuit court or the Supreme Court of Appeals such adjudication is final, and the question of liability under such guaranty cannot subsequently be reopened.
3. A bond or note, executed by bank directors or stockholders, to make good an impairment of a bank's assets, so that the bank may continue in business, is based on valid consideration.
4. A trial chancellor's finding of fact, based on sufficient evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal unless at variance with the weight of evidence.
5. A trustee under a testamentary spendthrift trust will not be deprived of his right to commission on the principal of such funds which come into his hands, merely because as executor under the will creating the trust or as a commissioner of court for the sale of real property, he has already received a commission on such funds.
6. In settlement of a decedent's estate it is improper for an executor who is a lawyer to be allowed, for extra services performed by him, a legal fee in addition to commissions but, within carefully circumscribed bounds to be fixed and determined by the proper tribunal, extra services of a fiduciary-lawyer may be taken into account in fixing his compensation under the statute.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mineral County.
Suit by Emory Tyler and H. L. Arnold, executors against E. B. Reynolds and others, to subject the estate of F. M. Reynolds, deceased, to sale for liquidation of debts. From an adverse decree, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Poffenbarger & Poffenbarger, of Charleston, for appellants.
Harry K. Drane and Emory Tyler, both of Keyser, and Martin, Seibert & Beall, of Martinsburg, for appellees.
MAXWELL President.
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Mineral County and involves certain items in the settlement of the estate of F. M. Reynolds, deceased. The appellants are G. H Reynolds and E. B. Reynolds, sons of the decedent and devisees under his will, and E. B. Reynolds as one of the three executors of the will. The other two executors are Emory Tyler and Harry L. Arnold, plaintiffs in this cause and appellees on this appeal.
Judge F. M. Reynolds died testate September 23, 1931. Since his death involvement, delay and litigation have attended his estate. Most of the affairs of the estate were before this court in 1935. In re F. M. Reynolds' Estate, 116 W.Va. 249, 180 S.E. 6. That writ of error centered in a report of the commissioner of accounts of Mineral County to whom the estate had been referred by the county court. The supplemental report of the commissioner was confirmed by the county court, and, on writ of error, the circuit court of that county, by order of November 26, 1934, affirmed the county court's action. On writ of error prosecuted in this court by E. B. Reynolds, Jessie K. Reynolds, Nina R. Carskadon and G. H. Reynolds, children of the decedent and devisees under his will, we affirmed the circuit court's order.
In May, 1934, while the reference was still pending before the commissioner of accounts, this chancery suit was instituted by Tyler and Arnold, two of the executors. The other executor, E. B. Reynolds, declined to join with his co-executors as a plaintiff in the suit. For some months after the institution of this suit, it remained inactive, and, within that period, the commissioner of accounts made his report to the county court which affirmed the same, and the circuit court, by order of November 26, 1934, affirmed the county court. Thereafter, in August, 1935, an order of reference was entered herein. One of the basic purposes of this suit is to subject the F. M. Reynolds real estate to sale for the liquidation of debts.
The requirements placed on the commissioner in chancery by the order of reference were, in no small degree, repetitious of ascertainment which had already been made in the county court proceeding and affirmed by the circuit court and ultimately affirmed by this court. However, some of the matters covered by the order of reference, as hereinafter particularized, are not duplicative of matters whereon findings have already been made. The fourth item of the order of reference required report of "debts said F. M. Reynolds owed at the time of his death, to whom they were payable, their nature, and their respective amounts and priorities, except that no testimony need be taken with reference to the debts found to be due, as affirmed by an order entered on the 26th day of November, 1934, and recorded in L. O. Book No. 14, at page 145, of the records of this court."
The points involved on this appeal are the chancellor's adjudications respecting the following matters:
(1) A note of F. M. Reynolds for $9,000.00, dated March 21, 1931, payable to The First National Bank of Keyser six months after date.
(2) A guaranty of Judge Reynolds under date of February 16, 1924, pertaining to certain notes of G. H. Reynolds, E. B. Reynolds and Jessie K. Reynolds, which notes, payable to The First National Bank of Keyser, did not carry the signature of F. M. Reynolds, as joint maker or endorser.
(3) A note for $25,000.00 executed by F. M. Reynolds June 19, 1931, payable on or before two years after date to the order of The First National Bank of Keyser.
(4) "Music Hall" bonds in the sum of $19,000.00, claimed by the bank to have been pledged by Judge Reynolds as collateral security for the $25,000.00 note.
(5) A settlement of the trusteeship of F. M. Reynolds under the will of Eli Nine, deceased.
(6) The claim of Emory Tyler, one of the executors of the F. M. Reynolds will, for compensation for extra services rendered by him to the estate.
Item One. The $9,000.00 note. The commissioner in chancery heard much evidence respecting this note. He approved the claim on its merits and expressed the opinion in his report that the taking of evidence before him concerning the note was improper because the note already had been adjudicated as a debt against the estate. He calls attention to the fact that it was one of the debts allowed by the commissioner of accounts to whom the estate had been referred by the county court, and that his report had been affirmed by the circuit court and the Supreme Court of Appeals. The finding of the commissioner in chancery in this particular was approved by the trial chancellor. In his opinion, the judge said: "The auditing of this debt is res judicata and the exception thereto is overruled."
The bank held another and older note in the sum of $9,000.00, the makers whereof were N. R. Carskadon, N. B. Carskadon, and F. M. Reynolds. By reason of credits which had been made thereon, this note is shown in the report of the commissioner of accounts as $8700.00, with interest thereon from June 8, 1932. It is the theory of the appellants that these two notes represent the same debt, and "that the individual note of Judge Reynolds was given merely to strengthen or support the Carskadon note, and that both represent the same money." Of course, the giving of an individual note would in no wise strengthen an earlier note on which the same individual was one of the makers.
Since sensible men of affairs do not ordinarily do vain and useless things, it is difficult to accept the view that the officials of The First National Bank of Keyser exacted from Judge Reynolds an additional note for the same debt, or that he would have participated in such fruitless action. The evidence relied on as tending to show that such inconsequential course was taken is conjectural. We are therefore of opinion that the commissioner of accounts in the first instance properly allowed both the Carskadon note, and the individual note now under attack; further, that the commissioner in chancery correctly allowed both of those items, and that the trial chancellor committed no error in holding that he would not consider the exceptions to the allowance of the individual note of $9,000.00, because the matter had been adjudicated in the manner hereinabove explained. Therefore, we affirm the trial court respecting the $9,000.00 note of March 21, 1931.
Item Two. The guaranty of Judge Reynolds. Under date of February 16, 1924, Judge Reynolds gave to the Board of Directors of The First National Bank of Keyser a written communication as follows:
"The purpose of this letter is to guarantee the payment of certain notes carried in the assets of your bank and executed by G. H. Reynolds, E. B. Reynolds and Jennie C. Reynolds.
It appears that the total indebtedness of the three individuals named above, as evidenced by notes discounted by your bank is Twenty Three Thousand and Thirty Dollars ($23,030.00) and that my name appears as endorser upon $6,300.00 of this amount. This letter is to guarantee the payment of the other items included amounting to $16,730.00 or any renewals of the notes now held by your bank, whether the renewals may be for like amounts as the items now...
To continue reading
Request your trial