Vaiden v. Edson

• Decision Date: 15 November 1915
• Citation: 95 A. 980
• Parties: VAIDEN et al. v. EDSON et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

95 A. 980

VAIDEN et al.

v. EDSON et al.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 15, 1915.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Suit by Charlott E. Vaiden and others against William L. Edson and others. From an order overruling demurrers to the complaint, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The complainants, Charlott E. Vaiden, Annie M. Lane, Margaret E. Holmes, and George W. Jones, filed a supplemental bill in equity setting out that in the original bill it was charged one Henry Brown died testate, and by his last will and testament devised to his widow, for life, all his real and personal estate, and directed that after her death the real estate should be sold, and the proceeds of his entire estate divided into two parts, one of which was given to the children of his widow, and the other to the children of his sister; that the wife was appointed executor with another, but she alone qualified, and filed an inventory, and also an account in the orphans' court from which it appeared that, the personal property was absorbed in paying the testator's debts; that the wife enjoyed the real estate during life, which terminated December 28, 1907; that upon her death William L. Edson was appointed substituted administrator with the will annexed by the orphans' court, and has since held that office; that the real estate of which the testator died seised consisted of four tracts which are separately described; that the children of the testator's sister, as well as Margaret E. Holmes, a child of his wife, had assigned to the administrator with will annexed their respective legacies; that the complainants are four of the children of the wife, there being five, of whom one, Elias D. Jones, had assigned his share to one Maurice C. Gay, so that the only persons interested in the estate were the complainants, Gay, and Edson, the substituted administrator, who was interested as administrator, and also as purchaser of one-half of the estate from the legatees; that Edson collected and retained the rents, issues, and profits of the real estate, but refused to account or pay over to the complainants their share; that the complainants were entitled to have an immediate sale of the lands and an accounting, and prayed that Edson and Gay answer, that Edson be decreed to account for the rents received, and that the lands be sold by order of the court and the proceeds distributed. After this recital of the original bill the supplemental bill charges that before the filing of the original bill Edson sold at public vendue part of the lands, described as tracts 3 and 4 in the original bill, to an intermediary who purchased for the benefit of one Leverett Newcomb, the solicitor of the administrator, and thereafter conveyed the lands to him. The bill further charges that by proceedings taken under the original bill the Court of Chancery directed the administrator to make sale of tracts Nos. 1 and 2, and that prior to making the order the Vice Chancellor before whom the proceedings were had notified both Newcomb and Edson that, if Newcomb should become the purchaser of these lands, he would not confirm the same, the decree being that all the lands except tracts 3 and 4 as described in the bill should be sold by the administrator, and that after the sale the administrator should retain the proceeds of the sale of the land and other moneys that had come to his hands, including the rents, issues, and profits derived from the real estate, to abide the further order of the court, and that either party might make application to the court from time to time for a decree or decrees for partial or final distribution of the moneys; that the decree further provided that the land should be sold in such manner as may seem best for the interest of the complainant Margaret E. Holmes, who had an interest in tracts Nos. 3 and 4, but none in Nos. 1 and 2 as described therein. The bill further avers that, notwithstanding the order and direction of the Court of Chancery that Edson should file his account as such administrator in the orphans' court of the county of Cumberland within 30 days from the date of said decree, which was October 30, no such account was filed until June 21, on which date he did file with the surrogate of the county of Cumberland an account to which exceptions were filed and overruled, but because of other manifest errors in the account Edson was ordered by the orphans' court to restate his account, which order has never been complied with; that two years have elapsed since the order of the Chancellor directing the accounting; and that there is no good reason why the order should not have been obeyed. The bill further charges that the sale of the tracts 3 and 4 made by the administrator before the original bill was filed was, in truth and in fact, made to a trustee for Newcomb, who acted at the sale as solicitor and counsel for Edson as administrator; that Newcomb has since sold the property for several thousand dollars in excess of the price paid by him, and that in equity such profit is held in trust for the estate of Henry Brown; that, when the decree of October 30, 1911, was made, complainants were not apprised of the fact that these two tracts had been bought by Newcomb through an agent. The bill further charges that the orphans' court is a court of limited jurisdiction and without power to charge Newcomb, on the accounting directed to be made in the orphans' court, with the aforesaid profits, and that the conduct of Edson touching the administration of the estate has operated to defraud complainants of their property rights, and that he should be required to account forthwith in the Court of Chancery for the moneys in his hands, and the prayer is that Newcomb be also required to account for the aforesaid profits, and that Edson be required to file his final account in this court, and that the moneys, including the profit made by Newcomb, be distributed to the person entitled thereto, and that no further proceedings touching the account be allowed in the orphans' court, and also a prayer for general relief. The prayer...