Case ID: sc-eq_31/html/0305-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wasdiaw, Ch.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John T. Satterwhite vs. Joseph Davenport.
    
      Practice — Chancellor—Commissioner.
    Exception being filed to the answer for insufficiency, the presiding Chancellor, without referring the matter to the Commissioner, sustained the exception, and ordered the answer to be amended within thirty days. On appeal, held, that the course adopted was not irregular, and the judgment of the Chancellor was sustained.
    The Chancellor is the Court, and may, in deciding matters before the Court, dispense altogether with the aid of the Master or Commissioner.
    BEFORE JOHNSTON, OH., AT NEWBERRY,
    JULY, 1858.
    This bill was filed on the 20th May, 185S, by John T. Sat-terwhite, administrator of Reuben C. Golding, who died an infant, against Joseph Davenport, his guardian, for account.
    The following answer was filed on the 5th July, 1858:
    “The defendant, &c., answering, says, that he admits that Reuben C. Golding died intestate, under age, on the 26th day of October, 1857, as stated in the bill, and that letters of administration on his estate were granted to John F. Satterwhite on the 27th day of November, 1857. He further admits that the intestate was, at the time of his death, entitled to a considerable personal estate, which was in the hands of this defendant, and that said bond for the faithful performance of his duty as guardian, by this defendant, was given to the Commissioner in Equity. He further says that said ward was about fifteen years of age, and had been boarding out and going to school the year in which he died — that the amount for his boarding has not yet been obtained, although he has made application to the person with whom he had been boarding for the purpose of making payment, but could not ascertain the amount of the demand — that he has paid a large portion of the accounts against his ward, but not all, and that it has been impossible for this defendant to get all the accounts ready within the time allowed him since the filing of this bill, but he will have them all in soon, when he will be prepared with his account current of monies received and paichout. That the funds of his said ward were all at interest at the time of his death, and the defendant has not been able to procure them since, and will not be able to do so within the next twelve mouths, and therefore submits, that, not expecting so sudden a termination of his guardianship, it will operate as a great inconvenience to him to he required forthwith to advance all the funds of his said ward’s estate: Wherefore he prays to be allowed a reasonable time to obtain said guardianship funds, as also for his reasonable costs and charges.”
    The plaintiff excepted to the answer for insufficiency in this, that the defendant having admitted his liability to account, should have filed with his answer an account current, and that his reason set forth in his answer for not doing so is insufficient.
    His Honor, the presiding Chancellor, made the following order:
    The answer in this case having been excepted to on the ground that the defendant has not filed with it his account, and the exception having been sustained, it is ordered'that the defendant be required to amend his answer within thirty days, by filing, on oath, his said account therewith.
    The defendant appealed on the grounds:
    1. That His Honor erred in hearing and deciding on the exception to defendant’s answer before the fifteen days had expired, allowed by the 15th rule of Court, to the defendant to determine whether he would amend his answer or risk a hearing before the Commissioner.
    2. Because His Honor erred in hearing and deciding on the exception to defendant’s answer before it had been heard and certified insufficient by the Commissioner, from whose decision the defendant was at liberty to appeal to the Court or not, as he might think proper.
    
      3. Because His Honor erred in deciding that the reason given in the answer for not filing an account current, was not sufficient, whereas it is respectfully submitted that the defendant showed by his answer, that it was not in his power to render a full account of his guardianship within the time allowed for putting in his answer after bill filed and before Court.
    
      jFair, for appellant.
    
      Baxter, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Wasdiaw, Ch.

We find nothing substantial in this appeal. It assumes that the Chancellor is obliged to use the aid of the Master or Commissioner. I have elsewhere, I believe in an unreported Lancaster case, more fully expressed my opinions on this point: The Chancellor is the Court, and he may, if he chooses, dispense altogether with the aid of the Master. The burden’of defendant's complaint is that he was not allowed fifteen days to consider of the propriety of amending his answer, when in fact he was allowed by the Chancellor thirty days for such amendment; and if the appeal has operated as a supersedeas, as we are informed at the bar it has, (although we do not mean to intimate that this was the necessary result of appeal,) actually the defendant has obtained four months for filing his account current

The third ground of appeal does injustice to the Chancellor. It is conceded here that the answer was not read on circuit; and of course the Chancellor did not determine as to the sufficiency of the excuse for not filing the account current. We are of opinion, however, that sufficient indulgence has been granted to the defendant.

It is ordered and decreed that the appeal be dismissed.

Johnston and Dunkin, CC., concurred.

Appeal dismissed.