Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-09-21
OF rHE sUPREnE coURT.
OFFICIAL.
Opinions OF the supreme Court Of the !
state of Tennessee, az Jackson, April
Term, 1853.


Opinions OF the supreme Court OF the
state of Tennessee, az jackson, April
Term, 1853.
Reeves & ThOras, CO. joseph v. Steele, stal.
Henry F Steele d ed intestine IN Fayetts county,
in 1852 APplebury was appointed his administers
tor, who died in 1884, before the estate was fully
settled up, when William Campbell was sppointed
his adm nistrator. d 6oais noa he as, cisd, and
WAS succeeded ~ seie. Campbell, OF whom tle
plaintiffs in error surele3 il his sdninisraser
pond, joined With TIE dsfsnd4at IN error who al
the distributes Of Henry Steele, deceased, we're
then all Of age, in an pate petition the C1uu
~ Court Of Eayetts, Tor the sale CT q negro rsa
save, for distribution, be berg The only save be
longing 90 the estate The petition was grained
and the slave sold by Campbell under The decree OF
tue Court for ST 900, OF which, he failed 70 sri-
butte about S7U0 ana died ibsolyent. This elton
Of covenant was Instituted 10 the of the State
fJr the bsneht OF the distributes, upon the Adaia
istTators bond, against his surses, for the
not distributed. And the only question is. Whether
hey are liable fer that deisleaiion. The Circuit
Judge thought they we're. aud gave judgment AgSnst
taeR frem which they have Appealed in error, 20
this Court.
We have heretofore held, when the case Was be-
fore US, upon the suit Of Stanly. as successor Of
Campbell in the administrator, that they were not
liable 10 him, upon sue ground that neither "a
administrator the sUreties are liable TO eny al
ministrEior De 5onis aoH for things administered,
Blu: this is entirely different quest Il Is net
easy to see way il was necessary call IN the sir
Of Court 10 make ihe sale, wben ali the dHtFib-
atees were OF sge, aud the tile was complete in
them, and tae Gebts Of the estate all paid There
were no infants, a5d proceeding IN Court Eas not
necessary 20 gise the purchaser good title.
Bot suIl, that course adopted. and We have
to consider its effect 10 the esP6Gsibiliy of the
EureIies OF Campbell for his administration.
We have several times held, that since the act Of
1927, the title to slaves passed directly 10 dstrbu-
tees Of the deceased subject. and in the hands Of
the administrator u t1e payment Of debts lie has
power 20 sell them for that purpose, as be
had before that act but this could only be done ny
the Courts divsst the title out Of the dis
tributes. BY the act ri l649 this jurisdiction was
given to the Couaiy Cour,s, eOncurrently with The
Circait and Chanosry Courts. The Court could or-
der the sale TO be made BY their Clerk, he haviog
given a general bond TO cover such cases, er BY q
commission from whom bond and security was re-
CURED to be taken TO secure the fund
In this esss, the decree for sale was made by the
County Court empowering Campbell, the admins
traitor to make tue sale, and pay OUT the funds TO
those entitled, who the plaintiffs in this action.
No bond was ever given by him, and only part
Of the proceeds pSid out. and the balance lost by
his insolvency as before stated. Upon whom shall
the loss fall, is the question presented.
The bond Of his sureties as administrator only
binds them for the faithful performance of his
duties in thst capacity not for anything that might
be done by him under an appointment by the Court
fer different purpose. The sale OF the slaves OF
the estate vas not embraced in his functions sd-
ministrator, even if sold for distribution. It was
not contemplated by his suretiss that any fuad
would come ints his hands Of that kind
They knew the lsE forbid him to convert them in
TO money. If then the Court By distinct apPoi lt-
ment, clothed him with the power, Is is exercised
in his character Of commissioner, and net sd
minittratcr. II the Court failed to secure the fluid
thus to come into his hands under the decree 1t is
not tia fault of his suretias administrator, nd
the loss should not fall upon them. The present
plaintiffs were parties with him in the Court, ard
should have attended to their in'erss by demand
ing The proper boHd. They united in The petition
for the sale, and upon their Erayer it appoint
cd. They were The real parties 10 the proceeding,
and ne perhaps, al unnecessary parry entirely, IS
there we're no debss TO pay
The slave vas taken QUO ef his hands as admins
;rator upon he petition, ~ he Court, sRd fslurr
cd to bin in his nav ch sFac'er Of comm ssiOnsr TO
sell. The liability Of The defendant then teIninAt-
81, as be net acting as administrator.
We think that bis GoEOr erred in holding the
plaintiffs in liable Inc administrator bond,
and reverse the judgment. CAEUriCERs.
Test: N. D. WEIGH CLEsK.