Case ID: sc-eq_6/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Montgomery v. Ann Eveleigh and others.
    This was a bill filed to make the trust estate of Mrs ■Ann Eveleigh liable for a quantity of corn, alleged to have been supplied for the subsistence of the slaves rr the trust estate. The complainant, who was the endorser of the note of hand given for the corn, had been obliged to pay it; and this proceeding against the trust estate was for reimbursement.
    A trust es-f0!. necessa-of!ie?,furnished to the estate, though pur-general'agent of the estatc-
    The answers stated, that at the time the corn was purchased Mrs Eveleigh, the cestui que trust for life, had hired out the slaves and plantation by the year to her son Thomas Eveleigh, and that he was bound to support the slaves, and was alone responsible for the corn purchased by his agent, William Eveleigh, for that purpose. That Mrs Eveleigh did not give any authority to Thomas or William Eveleigh to purchase the corn in question.
    The case was referred to the Commissioner to report the facts. He made the following statement: to wit— “That Mrs Ann Eveleigh established a plantation on Black Pine river in the neighbourhood of the complainant—that the plantation was in want of provisions—that at a sale of the estate of Thomas Holloway deceased, in December 1817, William Eveleigh, the son of Mrs Ann Eveleigh, and who had the plantation in his charge, purchased corn and potatoes at the sale to the amount of $■435.27|, for which he gave his note with the complainant as his security. That all the corn and potatoes went to the plantation, except $119.88 worth of the corn, which the complainant got of the said William Eveleigh—that complainant had been sued on the note and had to pay the same.
    1826.
    
      Columbia.
    
    To this report the defendant filed exceptions.
    
      First. That the matter reported on by the Commissioner was not embraced in the order of reference.
    
      Second. That the Report could not be sustained by the evidence.
    
      Third. That the Commissioner received incompetent evidence.
    
      Miller, for complainant.
    
      Mayrant, contra.,
    De Saussure, Chancellor.
    The order of reference was a general one, and of course comprehended all that was a dispute between the parties. But to obviate objections I have permitted the defendant to go fully into evidence, and also the complainant. It was proved by Mr William Eveleigh, in corroboration of the answers, that Mrs Ann Eveleigh had hired out the slaves and plantation to her son Thomas by the year, at the time the corn was bought, viz. in December 1817. It was also proved that Thomas Eveleigh, as well as William Eve-
      leigh, had no property of his own, and no private credit; and that Thomas Eveleigh had constantly been for a number of years the general agent of his mother, and transacted all her business in relation to the trust estate, made purchases on behalf of it, and .gave his own notes, which were never disavowed by his mother, but were paid out of the trust estate; and this procured him credit for all the purposes of that estate. No notice was given to the world that Mrs Eveleigh had hired out the slaves to her son Thomas, and that he was to be looked to for the payment of supplies furnished to the trust estate. There was contrary evidence of what took place at the purchase of the corn now in question. But the weight of evidence was, that when the corn was purchased it was stated by William Eveleigh, who had charge of the plantation and slaves, that it was for the use and subsistence of the slaves of his mother’s estate; and it was both proved and admitted that the corn was applied to their use; there being no provisions on the place at that time, to wit, in December 1817.
    On considering the circumstances of this case, I am of opinion that the trust estate is liable for this debt. It would be a fraud on the public to protect a trust estate from such a demand. It has been repeatedly settled that trust estates are liable for debts contracted for their use, and indeed for their existence, as in this case, Cater v. Eveleigh, 4 Desaus. Rep. 19, and James v. Mayrant, 4 Desaus. Rep. 591. It would be destructive to trust estates if they were not so liable, as it would take away all credit when the slaves might be perishing for want of food, or dying for want of medical aid.
    It is therefore ordered and decreed, that the trust estate be liable for the payment of the debt proved in this case, for so much of the corn as went to the use of the trust estate, to wit, the sum of $315.39@ with interest from the 1st of January 1818, and costs of suit.
   From this decree there was an appeal, but the decree was affirmed for the reasons assigned by the Chancellor.

Decree affirmed.