Case ID: nc_159/html/0437-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LEE S. OVERMAN v. MATTIE LANIER et als.
    (Filed 17 April, 1912.)
    Executors and Administrators — Interest Chargeable.
    In this case it-was decided that the'account of the plaintiff, administrator, should “be reformed to charge him with interest from the date of filing the report on so much of the amount which is now adjudged to be due by him at that date, on which interest is not calculated in the judgment below”: Held, the interest should be calculated from the time the administrator filed his report, on the amount finally adjudged to be due, and not from the time the referee in the case filed his report.
    Appeal by defendant from Lyon, J., at May Term, 1911, of RowaN.
    
      T. J. Jerome, E. J. Justice, E. C. Gregory, L. H. Clement, C. W. Tillett and T. F. Kluttz for plaintiff.
    
    
      Manley, Hendren & Womble, Walser & Waher, Burwell and Gansler, and Geo. W. Garland for defendants.
    
   Per Curiam.

This case was decided at last term, 157 N. C., 544. The present appeal is upon the construction placed by the court below on the following language in our opinion: “The account should also be reformed to charge the administrator with interest from the date of filing the report on so much of the amount which is now adjudged to he due hy him at that date, on which interest is not calculated in the judgment below.”

Administration was taken out in December, 1894. In August, 1904, the plaintiff, administrator, filed his final report, showing a balance of $685.34 due by him at that date to the distributees. This proceeding was instituted by him in September, 1904, to have his final report approved and judgment of final discharge entered (Revisal, 150). The next of kin answered, alleging , that said amount admitted to be due by the final report of the ■administrator was incorrect, and that sundry large sums were due them. The matter was submitted to a referee, and his report, which was filed in January, 1911, adjudged that the balance'due by the administrator was- $5,346.33, with, interest thereon. This Court adjudged that a further amount was due by the administrator, i. e., $1,000.

It did not appear from the record whether interest was calculated by. the referee from the date of the filing of the final report of tbe administrator in August, 1904, down to tbe judgment in May, 1911, or not, or, if it was, upon wbat sums. It seems clear tbat no interest was allowed upon tbe balance due by tbe administrator from filing tbe referee’s report in January, 1911, to tbe judgment in May, 1911, and certainly none was allowed upon tbe additional amount of $1,000 added by tbe judgment of tbis Court.

Tbis Court being of opinion tbat tbe true amount adjudged to be due by tbe administrator at tbe time of filing bis report in August, 1904, should bear interest from tbat date, decreed tbat tbe account should, be reformed as above stated, i. “that tbe account should be reformed to charge tbe administrator with interest from tbe date of filing tbe report” (by which we meant from filing bis report in August, 1904) “on so much of tbe amount which is now adjudged to have been due by him at that date, on which interest is not calculated in tbe judgment below.” The context of tbe opinion indicated this, as we thought, plainly. It would have been better, it seems, as there were two reports — one by tbe administrator in August, 1904, and tbe other by tbe referee in January, 1911 — tbat we should have specifically stated which was meant, but we were discussing then tbe balance due by tbe administrator, and not any alleged errors of tbe referee, all of which bad been passed on.

Tbe report of the referee will be reformed so as to ascertain, under the opinion of tbis Court, the true amount due by the administrator in August, 1904, instead of the $685.34 which bis final report then admitted to be due, and interest will be calculated upon such balance from tbat date. Bushee v. Surles, 79 N. C., 53. The administrator should have filed a final report showing tbe true amount due by him at that date, and should have paid over the same to the defendants, or, if declined, be should have paid it into tbe clerk’s office to stop tbe running of interest (Revisal, 145). On tbe contrary, be claimed and used as bis own all above $685.34, and did not even pay tbat into the office.

The case will be remanded,, so tbat tbe court below may proceed in accordance with tbis opinion.

Reversed.