Case ID: nc_206/html/0037-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BbogdeN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGE FERGUSON, CLINT FERGUSON, CARRIE FERGUSON BRYANT, ALICE FERGUSON BERRY, MAE SUE FERGUSON WOODY, ANNIE BETHEL JACKSON, WALTER BETHEL, ULYSEES G. BETHEL and WILLIE HENDERSON BETHEL, By His Mother and Next Friend, ANNIE BELLE BETHEL McDANIEL, v. DAVID PRICE, Administrator of ALBERT BETHEL, Deceased, and NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK.
    (Filed 28 February, 1934.)
    1. Executors and Administrators P d: Judgments A b — Action held one in rem, and judgment based upon service by publication was not void.
    A judgment entered in an action to determine the heirs at law of intestate for the purpose of distributing funds in the hands of his administrator, in which the court has jurisdiction of the administrator and the funds in his hands, and some of the heirs appear in court and the other heirs are duly served by publication, is not void, the judgment being one in rem. C. S., 484.
    3. Same — Judgments M b — Heir's served by publication held barred from bringing subsequent action against administrator for share in estate.
    An action to determine the heirs at law of an intestate for the purpose of distributing funds in the hands of his administrator, the court having jurisdiction of the administrator and the funds in his hands and the heirs appearing in court, is an action in rem, and where service by publication is duly ordered on those heirs that cannot be found or are unknown, C. S., 4S4, and judgment entered directing the distribution of the fund, and the administrator has disbursed the fund in accordance with the judgment and filed his final account, the judgment will bar an action against the administrator by those heirs unknown at the time of the institution of the action and who did not see the notice by publication and did not áppear in the action. C. S., 492.
    Civil actioh, before Clement, J., at September Term, 1933, of BoCKINGHAM.
    A. L. Betbel, a colored man, died, and tbe defendant, David Price, ivas duly appointed administrator of his estate on 26 November, 1926. At the time of his death the deceased had in bank and due him in money the sum of $8,736.54. He had no wife or children, and after the payment of funeral expenses and the costs of administration there was left oil hand in money the sum of $6,627.58. The question arose as to who were the next of kin of intestate and in order to settle this question a suit was instituted in the Superior Court of Bockingham County, entitled “John Daniels, Jim Bethel, Harriet Slade, Mary Hairston, 'Willie Daniels, Willie Ann Adams, Green Bethel, Nat Bethel and Annie Bethel, v. David Price, administrator of the estate of A. L. Bethel, deceased, Harriet Thomas, Nannie L. Henderson, Ollie Pittrell, Willie Bethel, Nat Bethel and Green Bethel.” Summons was duly issued and served on the defendant administrator. On 12 March, 1927, J. H. Daniels made an affidavit that the sheriff had returned the summons in said action endorsed: “Harriet Thomas, Nannie L. Henderson and Ollie Pittrell not to be found in Rockingham County.” It further appeared from the affidavit “that the defendants therein cannot after due diligence be found within the State but a cause of action exists against the defendants in favor of plaintiff to determine the next of kin of A. L. Bethel, deceased, and to determine to whom the said estate belongs.” Whereupon, the said plaintiff prayed that summons be served on said defendants by publication. Pursuant to said affidavit the clerk of the Superior Court on 12 March, 1927, entered an order setting forth, that Harriet Thomas, Nannie L. Henderson and Ollie Pittrell were not to be found in Rockingham County, and after due diligence could not be found in the State, and that notice of the action be published as required by law. Thereupon a notice of publication was duly published as required by statute. The notice of publication stated: “The defendants, Harriet Thomas, Nannie L. Henderson, Ollie Pittrell, Nat Bethel, Green Bethel and Willie Bethel, and all other persons who claim any right, title or interest in and to the estate of A. L. Bethel, will take notice that an action entitled as above has been commenced in the Superior Court of Rockingham County to determine the heirs of the A. L. Bethel estate, and said defendants and all others interested will further take notice that they are required to appear before the clerk of the Superior Court in his office in Wentworth on or before 11 May, 1927, and answer or demur to the petition filed in this cause,” etc. The notice was dated 9 April, 1927. The plaintiffs filed a petition alleging the death of A. L. Bethel, intestate; that he left certain sums of money, and that the defendant, David Price, was duly appointed administrator. The petitioners further alleged that they were first cousins and next of kin of said A. L. Bethel and entitled to a one-ninth interest in said estate. The petition further prayed the court for an order of publication and that after such publication had been duly run “that they be declared to be the next of kin of said A. L. Bethel, deceased,” and that the administrator, after all debts of decedent, expenses of administration and costs of the action had been paid, to turn over to each of the above petitioners a one-ninth interest in said estate. Harriet Thomas, Nannie L. Henderson, Ollie Pittrell and Willie Bethel filed an answer denying that the petitioners were the next of kin and alleging that they were the next of kin and entitled to a one-fourth each of said estate. The petitioners filed a reply and the defendant administrator filed an answer denying all the allegations of the complaint, except that he was administrator and bad in bis bands tbe sum of $8,010.64. Thereafter at tbe November Term, 1927, tbe cause came on for trial in tbe Superior Court, and tbe following issue was submitted to tbe jury: “Are John Daniels, Jim Betbel, Harriet Slade, Mary Hairston, Willie Daniels, Willie Ann Adams, Green Betbel, Nat Betbel, Annie Betbel, Alice Price, Harriet Tbomas, Nannie L. Henderson, Ollie Pittrell and Willie Betbel tbe next of kin and beirs at law, and entitled to tbe proceeds of tbe estate of A. L. Betbel, share and share alike, wherever situated?” Tbe jury answered tbe issue “Yes,” and thereupon A. M. Stack, judge presiding, signed a judgment in accordance with tbe verdict and directed tbe defendant administrator to distribute tbe proceeds of said estate, less costs of administration, to tbe parties specified in tbe verdict. The judgment further declared: “And when said checks are delivered and paid to their attorneys of record, it shall be binding upon tbe beirs at law as completely as if paid direct to them.” Thereafter on 8 December, 1927, tbe administrator filed bis final account, showing all receipts and disbursements, and further disclosing that be bad paid tbe entire sum of money in bis bands, to wit, $6,627.58, to tbe distributees specified in tbe verdict and judgment, each distributee receiving tbe sum of $473.40. Tbe clerk audited tbe final account, approved tbe same and ordered it filed.
    Thereafter on 29 September, 1930, George Ferguson, Clint Ferguson Woody and Annie Betbel Jackson brought a suit in tbe Superior Court of Eockingham County v. David Price, administrator of Albert Betbel, and tbe National Surety Company of New York, alleging the death of A. L. Betbel, tbe appointment of defendant, David Price, as administrator of bis estate, tbe execution and delivery of a bond by tbe defendant Surety Company, and that said administrator, after paying debts and charges of administration, bad in bis bands for distribution tbe sum of $6,627.58, and that said plaintiffs were first cousins of deceased, and each entitled to tbe sum of $368.19 or a total of $2,209.14. Tbe administrator filed an answer denying tbe allegations of. tbe complaint and alleging that be bad fully administered said estate according to law and bad disbursed all funds in bis bands “under order of tbe Superior Court of Eockingham County and filed a final account showing all such receipts and disbursements which was duly ordered and approved by tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court of Eockingham County on 8 December, 1927.” Tbe cause came on for trial and evidence was introduced tending to show that tbe plaintiffs in tbe present action were kin to the deceased and entitled to a distributive share in bis estate. Tbe testimony further showed that Mae Sue Woody lived in Tennessee, and that Clint Ferguson and Carrie Ferguson Bryant lived in West Virginia. Tbe defendant introduced tbe Stack judgment rendered at tbe November Term, 1927, and also certain testimony from tbe administrator to the effect that he bad made a final settlement of tbe estate and disbursed tbe money in accordance with tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court aforesaid.
    At the conclusion of all tbe evidence tbe trial judge duly entered a judgment of nonsuit and tbe plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Brown <£■ Trotter and William R. Ballon for flaintiffs.
    
    
      Hunter K. Penn and Kenneth M. Brim for defendants.
    
   BbogdeN, J.

(1) Was tbe judgment signed by Judge Stack, at tbe November Term, 1927, in tbe proceeding entitled: John Daniels et al. v. David Price, administrator, el ah, void ?

(2) Does such judgment constitute a bar to the right of plaintiffs to recover against tbe administrator?

In determining whether tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court entered by Judge Stack, at tbe November Term, 1927, was void, it is necessary to keep certain facts clearly in mind. In the first place, tbe res or subject-matter of tbe action was subject to 'the jurisdiction of tbe Superior Court; that is to say, the money was within tbe jurisdiction of tbe court and tbe administrator bolding tbe money was likewise subject to tbe jurisdiction of tbe court, and at all times under tbe control, direction and supervision of tbe court. Consequently, tbe suit was an action in rem. Tbe judgment roll discloses that tbe purpose of tbe action was to discover tbe next of kin of A. L. Bethel, who were apparently widely scattered and to distribute tbe entire fund to such persons as tbe court might determine entitled thereto after due investigation and inquiry in accordance with law.

The plaintiffs in the present suit were not parties to the former action in the Superior Court and their testimony is to tbe effect that they knew nothing of tbe proceeding. However, an attempt was made by publication to give notice to all parties who claimed an interest in tbe estate of deceased. Indeed, no other method was available. An affidavit was filed in the cause setting forth that tbe summons bad been returned and that certain defendants were not to be found in Eocking-bam County, or, after due diligence, within tbe State of North Carolina. An order of publication was duly made and in tbe notice of publication duly signed by tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court on 9 April, 1927, certain defendants therein specified “and all other persons who claim any right, title or interest in and to tbe estate of A. L. Bethel were notified that an action entitled as above has been commenced in tbe Superior Court of Eockingbam County to determine tbe heirs of tbe A. L. Bethel estate.” Said notice of publication further required all such persons to appear at the office of the clerk of the Superior Court at Wentworth on or before 11 May, 1921, “and answer or demur to the petition filed in this cause,” etc. This notice was duly published.

C. S., 484, authorizes the service of summons in certain instances therein specified “where the subject of the action is real or personal property in this State, and the defendant has, or claims, or the relief demanded consists wholly or partly in excluding him from any actual or contingent lien or interest therein.” Obviously, the subject of the action was money in the hands of an administrator, and the plaintiffs in the present action had or claimed an interest therein. While it is unfortunate that the plaintiffs in the present suit did not see the notice or assert their rights, it cannot be held that the Stack judgment of November, 1927, was void. Moreover, the plaintiffs in the present suit do not mention the judgment in their complaint, and, therefore, neither attempt to set. it aside so far as they are concerned by an independent action nor motion in the cause. McIntosh in North Carolina Practice and Procedure, page 317, section 321, says: “The owner of property, whether resident or nonresident, who cannot be reached personally by the process of court, is presumed to look after his interest, and when notice is given in a proper proceeding affecting his property and in a manner provided by law, he is bound by it.” This declaration of the author is fully supported by Foster v. Allison Corporation, 191 N. C., 166, 131 S. E., 648. Indeed, C. S., 492, referring to judgments on substituted service or service by publication, declares: “No fiduciary officer or trustee who has made distribution of a fund under such judgment in good faith, is personally liable,” etc. See Lawrence v. Hardy, 151 N. C., 123, 65 S. E., 766; Stevenson v. Trust Co., 202 N. C., 92, 161 S. E., 728. See, also, Harris v. Starkey, 57 N. E., 698; O'Neill v. Cunningham, 244 Pac., 444.

It necessarily follows from the conclusion upon the first question of law that said judgment constitutes an estoppel so far as the administrator is concerned, as it stands admitted upon the record that he has disbursed the entire fund in his hands in accordance with the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

As no relief is asked except as against the administrator, the ruling of the trial judge was correct.

Affirmed.