The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-04-17
IN FAVOR OF THE HEIRS
JUDGE SPEER's DECISION IN THE
LAMAR CASE.

Interested Mrs. Lamar's Interests
Still Undecided-A Lengthy Decision
and the Grounds it Covers-Au
Account to be Taken Between Mrs
Lamar and Her Distributive Share in
the Estate.
Judge Speer rendered his decision in the
Lamar mortgage case yesterday morning.
1t is final so far as the heirs are interested
and is in their favor. So far as Mrs. Lamar
is interested the case is yet undecided.
The facts in the case, as outlined in the
| opinion, may be briefly stated as follows
On Jan. IA, 1851, Gazaway B. Lamar gave
to the Bank of the Republic of New York
| his bond for $164, 900, secured by mort
| gage on the property in Savannah known
| as Lamar's wharves, press, warehouse, etc.
This mortgage was not recorded. After
ward on Dec. 81 1868, G. B. Lamar sold
the property to his son. Chas. A. l.. Lamar,
| giving him a warranty deed therefor.
| Charles A. J.. Lamar died intestate April
10, 1865, and Mrs. Caroline A. Lamar
| qualified as his administrative.
On May 10, 1886, the Bank of the Repub-
| lie obtained a judgment of foreclosure on
the mortgage of G. B. Lamar to it, and had
the Fl. ia. levied on these lands. Mrs. Lamar
as administrators interposed claim to the
lands as the property of her husbands es-
tate.
THE CASE IN COURT.
On March 6, 1868 while this claim was
pending, the Bank Of the Republic and G.
b. Lamar, as compliments, brought a bill
IN Chatham Superior Court, in which they
alleged that Charles A. L. Lamar knew of
the existence Of the mortgage on the land
when he bought it, and that the land was
subject to the lien of the mortgage, and
proposed to compromise the matter
by Mrs. Lamar, as Administrative,
giving new bond and mortgage to the
Bank of the Republic, and assuming the
debt of G. B. Lamar TO the bank to the ex-
tent of $4,000, in consideration of which
IT, b. Lamar was to give &. A. L. Lamar's
estate credit for $4,000 on an alleged ac-
count, G. b. Lamar alleging in his bill, in
an indefinite manner, that the estate was in
debted to him in a greater amount than that
sum, but not stating the particulars of the
account and also that the estate was to be
relieved from all other existing claims of
G B. Lamar against it.
MRS. LAMAR's ANSWER.
Mrs. Lamar as administrative, fled her
answer to the bill on the sams day that the
bill was filed, and on the same day that a
verdict of jury and a decree of the
Superior Court were obtained, finding that
it would be to the interest of the estate to
make this arrangement, and authorizing
Mrs Lamar, as administrators, TO execute
the new bond and mortgage. This she did
on March H. 1868. On May z, 1874, G. B.
Lamar paid the mortgage to the Bank of
the Republic and took an assignment of it
to himself, and had the mortgage in his
possession when he died, Oct. 5, 1874. His
| executors filed the bill by which they are
now seeking to foreclose the mortgage.
The compliments solicitors introduced
the bond and mortgage made by Mrs. La
mar as administrative, and a copy of the
bill aud decree from Chatham Superior
Court, authorizing her to assume the debt
and mortgage the estate. They also offered
in evidence page from the ledger purport-
ing to be an account kept by G. B. Lamar
with the estate of G.. A. l.. Lamar, and a
journal entry in which G. B. Lamar had
entered credit of $4,000 to the estate of
G. A. l.. Lamar on his books, also certain
letters which passed between Mrs Caroline
A. Lamar and G. B. Lamar, and closed.
TRYING TO DISMISS THE BILL.
The defendants then moved to dismiss the
bill on the ground that the compliments
bad failed to make out their case After
| elaborate argument by counsel the court
took time for consideration, and the turn
given to the cause by the opinion delivered
yesterday shows that the court entered into
upon by the counsel on the argument of the
case. The opinion covers so much ground
| that only extracts FROM it can be given:
The fundamental difficulty in the way Of the
court in the determination of this weghtv and
interesting controversy is this: Was the decree
OF the Superior Court OF chatham county, by
| which Caroline A. Lamar, administrative was
authorized TO create this incumbrance up IN the
assets of the estate in her hands, within the
| power of court of equity of the State of Geor-
frtn irsNc tanf of
ton of the person or the subject matter or void
for any other cause, is n nullity, and may be so
| held in any court when it becomes material to
the interest of the parties to consider it.
THE BILL
1t is difficult to understand the ground upon
| which discovery was sought by this bill or
| what was the discovery sought. There is liter
ally not an argument in the bill upon which a
| 1t alleged that discovery is necessary. 1t IS
| difficult to perceive any legal reason why the
| bill was fled IL does not allege that Gazawav
| b. Lamar was insolvent, nor that the estate Of
! G. a. L. Lamar was insolvent. In the absence
| of these allegations, why did not Gazaway b.
| Lamar pay off the debt to the Bank or the Re
public which he had contracted, and thus re-
lieve the land he had sold his son from the lien
| Of the mortgagel If he held claims against the
| estate of his son, why did he not present those
claims in the manner usual in the admin
| istration and settlement of estates? Mrs La
mar. as administrators, and Charles A. L. Lamar
| her intestate, were neither of them parties to
the mortgage which the bill seeks to declare a
lien upon the land. II was no debt of the estate
| 1t is true that the bill prayed that the land of
| the estate be decreed subject to this lien but
! that was an attempt to give jurisdiction in plain
| violation of the law of the State The bill
| charged that a proceeding to subject the land
| was already pending in a court of law, that the
| land had been levied on and a claim interpnSed
| and the court Of law having jurisdiction OF that
| question the court of equity had no power TO
| interfere with it. The Code of Georgia, which
| controls this Georgia case, is plain and simple
| in its mandate upon thHU topic where law
| and equity have concurrent jurisdiction the
| court first taking il will retain il. unless good
| reason be shown to the contrary"
| This is the statute law, and repeated decisions
| Of the Supreme Court of the State enforce its
| provisions. II IS not even pretended that there
| is any reason TO transfer this controversy from
| a court of law TO court OF equity, and the
| ground of equity jurisdiction is narrowed down
| to the attempt to have the court authorize Mrs
| Lamar, as administrators, to pay Off a large
| portion OF the debt of GaZaway b. Lamar "a
| the Bank Of the Republic from the estate OF har
| husband and to receive in lieu of the property
so conveyed the intangible promise of credit
! upon demands against the estate which ar
| certainly involved in a degree of uncertainty
| and ohsCurity painful to the mind seeking an
| equitable adjustment of this controversy.
THE RIGHT OF ADMINISTRATORS.
After referring at length to the powers
! granted an administrators and the citations
of counsel Judge Speer continued
What the administrator could not do for
| herself, as such, She may not legally consent