The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1903-04-28
DUNCAN ESTATES WILL NOT
GO IN RECEIVERS HANDS.
No Proof That Estates Are in Dam
ger of Loss, Says Judge Barrow.

ger of Loss, Says Judge Barrow.
Judge Barrow declined the applica-
ton of Capt. A. McC. Duncan for
receiver on the estates of William
DuTycan, ST., and DR.. William Duncan
in the Superior Court yesterday, after
hearing exhaustive argument from
the attorneys representing the execu-
tors of the estates, and the attorneys
for Capt. Duncan. The court held
that since there was no allegation that
the interest of the applicant for the
receiver would be injured were the es-
tate allowed to remain in the hands of
the executors, Messrs. T. NJ. Cunning
ham and George ]. Mills, that it would
be an abuse of his discretion to grant
the receiVership.
The application grew out of the dis
satisfaction of Capt. Duncan with the
manner in which the estate was being
administered. A short while ago the
executors filed an application for dis
charge, submitting that their trust had
been administered. To their dismissal
Capt. Duncan filed objections, in which
some grave charges were made against
the executors; among other things
that they were managing the estate to
the detriment of the heirs and for
their own personal ggrandizement,
and were making improper charges
thereon.
To these objections the executors an
swered that the estate was being judi
ciousy managed, and denied the vari-
GUS charges of misconduct charged to
them. The issue has not yet been
tried, but is pending in the Court of
Ordinary, and will come up for deter
minatiOn in a few days The applica-
ton for the receiver was instituted
subsequent to the fling of the objec-
tons to the discharge.
In passing judgment Judge Barrow
clearly defined his position. He said
that even if there were any apprehen-
sion of loss the executors were pc
cuniarly responsible to the heirs The
court said, in part
1.-THE rule is well settled that while
courts of equity have unquestioned
power, in proper case, to take the
administration of the estate of a de-
cedent out of the hands of his admin
iStrator or executor and to manage it
by a receiver, this summary relief
should only be granted in case of
manifest danger of loss, distinctions
or material injury to the estate. There
is no allegation, and there is no at
tempt, of course, to show that this es-
tate, or the interest of the plaintiff
therein, is in any danger whatever of
loss, destruction or material injury.
obviously, it would be an abuse of
the discretion of the judge and an ar
bitrary exercise of power, to take the
possession and management of this
estate out of the hands of the persons
to whom 1t has been confded by the
testator and place it in the hands of
an officer of the court in the absence of
any allegation or proof that the estate
or the interest of the plaintiff was in
any danger of loss, destruction or ma
terial injury.
ut is earnestly insisted that the same
people are executors of the will of
William Duncan, Jr., by appointment,
and also of the will of William Duncan,
Sr, by operation of law as executors
of his executor, and that these two
positions in this case are inconsist-
ent, because, it is alleged, that the
executors of the estate of William Dun
can they are answerable to themselves
as executors of the elder Duncan for
quite a sum, and cannot sue them
selves. The answer to this is SIM
ply to invoke a plain, everyday rule
of law and chancery practice. Equity
never does anything by halves. Hav-
ing all the parties before it, it will do
complete justice, and If it is true that
such state of things exists, no rea-
son can be shown, SO far as the plead
ings in this case disclose the facts, why
the decree in this case, with the pres
ent parties, could not adjust these &C
counts between the two estates and
do full and complete justice to the
plaintiff without the necessity for the
interposition of a receiver.
Besides, even if there was an ap-
prehension of loss alleged, it is freely
conceded by the attorney for the plain
tiff in the argument, that these de-
PENDANTS are amply responsible, pc
cuniarily, for any amount which may
be decreed to be due to the plaintiff in
this case on anV account I"