The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-04-02
SERIOUS M|XUP
IN HOLT CASE
Handled UnIawfulIy Forty Years
1.-The Fee of $1,000
Knocked Out.

A unanimous opinion of the Supreme
Court, written by Justice Wilder, de-
nounces the proceedings of more than
forty years past with regard to the
estate of Robert w. Holt, who died
on July 6, 1852. 1t shows that six or
eight administrators in that period IL
ers, with probate courts all down the
line asserting to the irregularity. The
decree of Judge Robinson constituting
the will of the deceased is reversed
and the cause is remanded to the cir
cult judge with instructions TO dismiss
the bill and to set aside the order for
counsel fees. Plaintiff, C. A. Long,
was ordered to pay from the funds of
the estate a fee of $1,000 to E. C. Pc
tiers, counsel for four of the defend
ants. From this order plaintiff ap-
| pealed but did not refer to the matter
in his brief. On this the opinion says:
| Under some circumstances this might
| be considered an abandonment of the
point, but in view of the facts shown
in this case the matter will be con-
| sidered. We are clearly Of the opinion
/ that the amount of the fee, if any at
| all was proper, was greatly excessive,
| and under the circumstances of this
case the order allowing same should
be set aside
| Defendants in the case were the benz
| eficiaries and others interested in the,
state. w. S. Edings appeared for plain
| tiff, and G. A. Davis, G. D. Gear, E. -
| Peters, E. A. Douthitt, Judd, Mott
| Smith & Hemenway, w. w. Thayer,
Castle & Wilmington AMI A. G. NJ.
Robertson for defendants.
The previous decisions of this
court" the opinion says, would seem
to determine practically all of the
questions submitted in so far as they
concern the administrator, and in so
far as they do not concern him h , has
no right to institute a suit su.h as
this. In Kaikainahaole V. Allen it was
held that a court of equity will not
advise an administrator upon simple
questions of law about which he should
have consulted an attorney, but here
the questions not already covered by
the previous decisions of this court do
not concern the administrator at all.
Therefore, there seems no justifica-
tion for this suit whatever.
Plaintiffs appointment was unnec-
essary if there were no unadTniEister-
ed assets, and on a direct attack 1t
would undoubtedly have been set aside
If such were the case. So, too. il
would seem, there was no Justification
for the appointment of any of these
various administrators, as all that any
one of them had to do was to distrib- !
ute the property. The administration |
of the estate should have been closed |
over forty years ago by the executor |
and the property ordered distributed |
to a trustee properly appointed to hold |
for the purpose of paying the annuity |
to the widow and the balance of the |
income from the property to the life |
tenants and upon their death distrib- |
uting the personal property to those |
entitled, no conveyance by the trustee |
being required as to the land; or. fall |
ing the appointment of a trustee, to |
allow the life tenants to take possess
sion upon giving proper security.
These various administrators from
1866 down to the present time have |
been doing things in regard to this /
estate which, if done as adm!nistra- /
tors, are rather startling, tn say the |
least. They have loaned out money on
notes and mortgages, collected rents
from lands, sold lands, leased lands,
Cancelled leases, paid out money for
various purposes, invested money In |
bonds, foreclosed mortgages, purchas-
ed land at foreclosure sales, brought |
suits of various kinds; they have act
ed, in fact, as if they were trustees
with very broad powers, and all this
on the theory that the administration
of the estate had not been completed.
To be sure, what they did was with
the sanction and approval of the prob
ate court, to which court accounts
have always been rendered. But that
makes it all the more inexplicable."
Discussing the position of the plain
tiff the court says: THAT plaintiff is
de bonis non of the es-
tate with the will annexed does not
help him unless there are unadminis-
tered assets, concerning which only his
gives him authority. It
follows that plaintiff in keeping pos
session of the property and in collect
ing and paying out money is doing so
at his peril. He should forthwith ac-
count for all money received by him
and for all personal property which is
or should be in his hands, If
no trustee is appointed, then the life
tenants or their assignee would be en-
titled, on giving sufficient security, to
the possession of the property, that is.
all the personality, and two-thirds OF :
the realty, the other one-third of the ,
realty belonging to the heirs of o. J.
Holt, such person acting as trustee
as far as remaindermen are con-
Robert w. Holt by his will devised
and bequeathed to his wife $500 year
out of income for life, and the rest .
Of a very large estate equally between
MS four children-John Dominis Holt,
Owen Jones Holt, James Robinson
Holt and Mrs. Elizabeth NJ. Aldrich-
the three sons for life, at death their
heirs and assigns of heirs to take their
shares, and the daughter absolutely to
herself, her heirs and assigns. On
November IS, 1863 Mrs Aldrich'S de- K