Roberts v. Carmichael

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Roberts v. Carmichael

23 S.E.2d 272, 68 Ga. App. 595, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 181

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 21, 1942

Docket29736.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 S.E.2d 272 (Roberts v. Carmichael) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roberts v. Carmichael, 23 S.E.2d 272, 68 Ga. App. 595, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 181 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinions

Felton, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

1, 2. The first and second headnotes require no elaboration.

3 (a). The judgment of the court with respect to the funds coming into the hands of the administrator from his predecessor and from the sale of the real estate of the estate of the deceased was correct. The caveator had no standing in court unless title to the above property passed to her children under the judgment for a year’s support. This judgment clearly shows that only money in the hands of the administrator at the time of the setting apart of the year’s support was contemplated from the plain and unambiguous terms of the return, which was not appealed. Whether the return as to the money is reasonable is beyond the question. It is a reasonable deduction to say that the appraisers did not know whether there was any,money remaining-at the time of their return or not. If they had known that there was none it does not seem that they would have set any apart. Nor do we think it was incumbent on the appraisers to determine whether the payments which had been made by the administrator were legal payments, nor to attribute to them as laymen the wisdom of intending to set aside money illegally paid out by the administrator. If they had so intended it would have been so easy to make it clearly known. Likewise, if it had been intended that any other money coming in later should be set . apart, such intention could easily have been stated. No appeal was taken from the judgment approving the return of the appraisers, and it must be enforced as written. All of the money above mentioned had been paid out before the judg *603 ment setting apart the year’s support, and consequently the title did not pass under the judgment setting it apart.

(&) The judgment was correct as respects the proceeds of the sale of the real estate, because if the 'administrator had not made the agreement he did with the holders of the security deeds there would have been no proceeds from the real estate. In the circumstances the holders of the security deeds had the right to have the agreement enforced as made or they would not have been bound to carry out their part of the agreement. The arrangement amounted to their accepting the money from the sales in full settlement and their paying the bills complained of themselves. Neither the estate of the deceased, nor one claiming under it, could object to the manner in which this matter was handled, because it resulted favorably to the estate in the discharge of more of its obligations than would have resulted without it, and because if the agreement had not been made and carried out the estate would have been in a worse financial condition.

(c) The judgment with reference to the proceeds of the money from the Junior Order of United American Mechanics was correct. It was contended that, it belonged to the children and not to the estate. One claiming adversely to the estate must file his claim in a court other than the court of ordinary. Fulford v. Sweat, 65 Ga. App. 521 (16 S. E. 2d, 102); Lyons v. Armstrong, 142 Ga. 257 (82 S. E. 651). The question of the liability of the administrator has not been adjudicated in the judgment under review here.

The court did not err in rendering the judgment' complained of.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, J., concurs.

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

Felton, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

1, 2. The first and second headnotes require no elaboration.

3 (a). The judgment of the court with respect to the funds coming into the hands of the administrator from his predecessor and from the sale of the real estate of the estate of the deceased was correct. The caveator had no standing in court unless title to the above property passed to her children under the judgment for a year’s support. This judgment clearly shows that only money in the hands of the administrator at the time of the setting apart of the year’s support was contemplated from the plain and unambiguous terms of the return, which was not appealed. Whether the return as to the money is reasonable is beyond the question. It is a reasonable deduction to say that the appraisers did not know whether there was any,money remaining-at the time of their return or not. If they had known that there was none it does not seem that they would have set any apart. Nor do we think it was incumbent on the appraisers to determine whether the payments which had been made by the administrator were legal payments, nor to attribute to them as laymen the wisdom of intending to set aside money illegally paid out by the administrator. If they had so intended it would have been so easy to make it clearly known. Likewise, if it had been intended that any other money coming in later should be set . apart, such intention could easily have been stated. No appeal was taken from the judgment approving the return of the appraisers, and it must be enforced as written. All of the money above mentioned had been paid out before the judg *603 ment setting apart the year’s support, and consequently the title did not pass under the judgment setting it apart.

(&) The judgment was correct as respects the proceeds of the sale of the real estate, because if the 'administrator had not made the agreement he did with the holders of the security deeds there would have been no proceeds from the real estate. In the circumstances the holders of the security deeds had the right to have the agreement enforced as made or they would not have been bound to carry out their part of the agreement. The arrangement amounted to their accepting the money from the sales in full settlement and their paying the bills complained of themselves. Neither the estate of the deceased, nor one claiming under it, could object to the manner in which this matter was handled, because it resulted favorably to the estate in the discharge of more of its obligations than would have resulted without it, and because if the agreement had not been made and carried out the estate would have been in a worse financial condition.

(c) The judgment with reference to the proceeds of the money from the Junior Order of United American Mechanics was correct. It was contended that, it belonged to the children and not to the estate. One claiming adversely to the estate must file his claim in a court other than the court of ordinary. Fulford v. Sweat, 65 Ga. App. 521 (16 S. E. 2d, 102); Lyons v. Armstrong, 142 Ga. 257 (82 S. E. 651). The question of the liability of the administrator has not been adjudicated in the judgment under review here.

The court did not err in rendering the judgment' complained of.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 S.E.2d 272, 68 Ga. App. 595, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-carmichael-gactapp-1942.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack