Case ID: ga_96/html/0775-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Simmons, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel, adm’r, v. Columbus Fertilizer Co. et al.
    
    May 13, 1895.
    Brought forward from the last term.
    Equitable petition. Before Judge Fish. Sumter superior court. May term, 1894.
    The administrator of Job Read brought a petition to marshal the assets of the estate, praying that its creditors be restrained from instituting suits, that they be made parties defendant to this petition and their rights be adjudicated hereunder, etc. It appeal’s from the petition, that there are about sixteen creditors with various and conflicting claims, and that the estate is probably insolvent. Year’s support and dower had been set apart to the widow of Read; and under order of the court of ordinary, petitioner sold the remainder of the estate, realizing $2,258 in cash as its entire assets. The creditors of whose claims he had been notified were: the People’s National Bank, by note for $279; the Columbus Fertilizer Co., by note for 1,500 pounds of middling cotton; H. G-. Daniel, by note for $385, by account for $15.85, and by judgment against petitioner for $300 for rent or use of farm by Read; various othei’S by notes and accounts (giving their names and amounts); three named persons, for labor on Read’s farm during the year of his death; and Mrs. Emily Read, for $280.38 principal, besides interest for a like or larger amount, she claiming to be the sole heir of certain of the heii’s of one Caston, of whom Read was administrator, and claiming that said heirs were not settled with by Read, and that her. claim is in the nature of a ti’ust debt. As to this petitioner asks direction as to whether it is such, whether it is not barred, etc. He further asks direction as to whether the claims for labor done on the farm have any priority of lien; and as to whether the judgment of H. G. Daniel has priority, it being the result of an arbitration between him and petitioner, touching-certain land which Head held under bond for title, without having paid the purchase money due, but having had the use of the land for some time before his death. The petition sets forth in detail the facts as to the arbitration and award which was made the judgment of the court, showing that the same resulted in benefit to the estate, etc. lie mentions other priorities claimed by sundry creditors; and alleges that it will be hazardous to undertake the disbursement of the fund in hand, without direction from the court. Most of the creditors named were served with the petition. No answer or appearance was made by any of them except the bank and the fertilizer company, who demurred to the petition for want of equity. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff excepted.
   Simmons, C. J.

The facts alleged, in the plaintiff’s petition to marshal the assets of the estate of his intestate showed sufficient doubt and uncertainty as to the legal priority of the several claims against the estate, and enough complication in its affairs, to make the filing of the petition proper. This being so, it was not without equity, and it was error to dismiss it upon demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

J. A. Anslby, for plaintiff.

J, II. Lumpkin, for defendants.