James v. . Withers

36 S.E. 178, 126 N.C. 715, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 301
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 29, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 36 S.E. 178 (James v. . Withers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
James v. . Withers, 36 S.E. 178, 126 N.C. 715, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 301 (N.C. 1900).

Opinions

CLARK, J., dissenting. From the decree directing a sale by the trustee, E. S. Withers, defendant, the plaintiffs appealed.

The case is one of some complexity, but is fully elucidated in the opinions rendered now and at February Term, 1894, reported (716) in 114 N.C. 474. C. W. James, the plaintiff's ancestor, on 20 July, 1892, conveyed a tract of land and certain personal property to James L. Grogan at the price of $2,350, and the purchaser and his wife executed a deed of trust upon the property to secure the notes which were *Page 458 given by Grogan for the purchase money. After the death of the grantor, Grogan conveyed his equity of redemption, his wife joining in the deed, in the tract of land to the heirs at law — without naming them — of the grantor, James. W. F. Campbell, the public administrator of Stokes County, qualified as administrator of C. W. James, and requested E. S. Withers, the trustee (defendant), to sell the land and pay the proceeds to him, to be constituted assets for the payment of the debts of the intestate. The sale of the land was advertised by the trustee, and then this action was commenced to enjoin the trustee from making a sale of the land, to have the deed of trust canceled, and for such other and further relief as they might be entitled to. The injunction was granted and an appeal taken by defendant from the order. This Court, on hearing the appeal, reversed the order of the court below on the ground that it was improvidently made, because no undertaking was required on the part of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were allowed to apply again for an injunction, to be granted upon the filing of an undertaking on their part.

(717) During the pendency of the appeal, however, the trustee had sold the land, the defendant J. Walter Neal having been the purchaser.

In the opinion of the Court on the first appeal it was suggested that when all proper parties should have been made and the pleadings filed, if it should appear necessary, then there should be a reference to ascertain whether there were any debts of the intestate, and the amount, if any, and the sum which might become due for charges of administration. When all this should have been done, if it should appear to be to the interest of all parties concerned, a decree would be proper, giving to the plaintiffs a day before which they would be allowed to pay the ascertained debts and charges of administration, and upon payment of the same, a decree might be made for the cancellation of the deed of trust, and for partition of property among the owners. It was further suggested that if there should be no debts of the estate, the plaintiffs being entitled to the proceeds of the sale as distributees, and being also the owners of the equity of redemption, there should be a judgment directing a cancellation of the deed of trust upon the payment of the charges of administration. In deference to these suggestions all the heirs at law of C. W. James were made parties plaintiff, and the administrator and J. W. Neal, and the board of commissioners of Stokes County were made parties defendant. At August Term, 1897, of the Superior Court, the sale by the trustee to Neal was set aside and a reference ordered. The referee was instructed to find the facts and his conclusions of law thereon, and report the same to the Superior Court. *Page 459

The defendants appealed from that part of the judgment which decreed that the sale from the trustee to Neal should be set aside.

At September Term, 1897, of this Court the judgment of the court below was affirmed.

The referee made a report of the proceedings had before him as referee, to the Superior Court, and exceptions were filed on (718) both sides. He reported that the amount paid by Neal as the price of the land was $360; that the trustee retained $53 thereof for his charges and commissions in making the sale, and paid over to the administrator the balance, $307; that the administrator disbursed all but $9.55 of the amount, except the sum of $60, which he paid into the clerk's office for the plaintiffs — the heirs of Calvin and Alexander James — and the sum of $17.35 which he retained as commissions; that the disbursements made by the administrator were the sum of $12.30 for taxes assessed against C. W. James before his death; $30 attorney's fee; $168 to defendant board of commissioners, and the balance incidental cost of administration; and that most of the fund deposited in the clerk's office had been drawn out by the heirs at law of Calvin and Alexander James.

It appeared further from the referee's report that the amount of $168, which was paid by the administrator to the board of commissioners, was a part of a claim which said board demanded by virtue of a contract and agreement made on the 5th of September, 1892, by certain of the plaintiffs, M. O. James, R. A. Neal, William James, Pleasant James and Faucett Odell. The contract was made because of a belief, on the part of the plaintiffs named, that the death of C. W. James was caused by poison having been feloniously administered to him, and a desire on their part to have the stomach of the deceased examined by a chemist, the plaintiffs being unable to furnish the money for that purpose. The agreement was in these words: "We, the undersigned heirs at law of C. W. James, deceased, do hereby agree and consent that all expenses incurred by the county of Stokes in having the stomach of the said C. W. James analyzed, including the charge made by the chemist who analyzes the same, may be paid by the personal (719) representative and administrator of said James, deceased, out of our distributive share of his estate, and that a receipt of said administrator for said expenses may be and shall be a valid voucher for him in the administration of said estate."

Upon his finding of fact, the referee concluded as matter of law: 1. That the defendants were bound by the judgment rendered at Spring Term, 1897, setting aside the sale, that judgment having been affirmed by the Supreme Court. *Page 460

2. That the tax assessed in 1892 against C. W. James was a valid claim upon the estate of C. W. James.

3. That the $60, which was paid into the clerk's office by the administrator for the heirs at law of Calvin and Alexander James should be refunded to the purchaser of the land, Neal, and unless refunded by the parties who received the same, Neal should be subrogated to their rights.

4. That the board of commissioners should return to the purchaser, Neal, the $168, paid to them by the administrator, the referee holding that the contract made by a part of the plaintiffs with the board of commissioners did not constitute a debt against the estate of C. W. James.

The referee further concluded as a matter of law that in case the costs of administration, the debt (taxes), $12.30, and the $60, paid into the clerk's office, should not be paid within a reasonable time, the administrator should have the right to enforce the sale of the land by the trustee — the net proceeds to be used by the administrator toward the payment of the costs of administration, including his commissions; the debt of $12.30, and the balance to be paid to the heirs at law (the plaintiffs) according to their respective rights; and in making this distribution of the surplus the administrator should pay to J. Walter Neal from the interest of the heirs at law of Calvin and Alexander James (720) the $60, which was paid into the clerk's office for them. The exceptions filed to the report were heard at Spring Term, 1899, of the Superior Court, and the referee's conclusions of law were modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alexander v. Galloway
80 S.E.2d 369 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Scott v. . Harrison
7 S.E.2d 547 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Parker v. . Porter
179 S.E. 28 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 S.E. 178, 126 N.C. 715, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-withers-nc-1900.