Case Name: Meeks' Adm'r &c. v. Thompson & als.
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1851-07
Citations: 8 Gratt. 134
Docket Number: 
Parties: Meeks’ Adm’r &c. v. Thompson & als.
Judges: (Absent Cabell, P.)
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 470–471

Head Matter:
Meeks’ Adm’r &c. v. Thompson & als.
July Term, 1851,
Lewisburg.
[56 Am. Dec. 134.]
(Absent Cabell, P.)
1. Executors — Sale of Realty — Application of Purchase Money — Liability 'of Purchaser. — Where the charge upon land by will, for the payment of debts, Is general, the purchaser from the executor or the administrator with the will annexed is not bound to see to the application of the purchase money.
2. Same* — Same—Same—Effect on Vendee’s Title. — In such case if the sale was necessary at the time it was made, and was fairly made; and the purchase money has been paid; the failure of the executor or administrator to account for and pay over the proceeds to the creditors of the estate, will not impair the title of the vendee.
3. Same* — Same—Accounting—Credits — Dower . Interest. — Land in which a widow is entitled to dower, being sold by an executor under a charge for payment of debts, he should be credited in his account of the proceeds, for the amount he has paid the widow in satisfaction of her dower interest.
This case was before this Court in 1836, and is reported in 7 Leigh 419. That report gives a sufficiently full statement of the case up to the period when that appeal was taken; and the decision of this Court only left open the question whether the sale of the land to Joseph Meeks was necessary.
When the cause went back, the infant children of James P. Thompson having attained the age of twenty-one years, the suit was carried on in their names, and Joseph Meeks dying it was revived against his executor James Meeks, and on his death, it was revived'in the name of Thomas J. Boyd administrator of James, andadminis-trator de bonis non with the will annexed of Joseph Meeks.
In 1841 the commissioner John P. Matthews returned his report of the administration of William P. Thompson upon the estate, of James P. Thompson. By this report a balance appeared against the administrator on the 1st of January 1823, of 1600 dollars 40 cents. In this account the administrator was charged with the purchase money of the land sold Meeks in 1814, and .also with the purchase money of other lands sold in 1821 to Adam Waterford, William Hinnegar and James Day, amounting to 981 .dollars. There was also a special statement of debts which the defendant insisted were due from the estate of James P. Thompson, amounting to 6843 dollars 46
At the April term of the Court for 1845 the commissioner made another report in which he stated that at the period of the sale of the land to Meeks, there was no personal, estate of. James P. Thompson unad-ministered, and that all of the personal estate was charged in the report of 1841. He reported also that at the *time of the sale to Meeks there was unsold the lands afterwards" purchased by Waterford, Hinnegar and Day: And that there was still other lands belonging to the estate, though of very little value; they being in very small parcels, and valued at twenty-five cents an acre; some of which had been sold for taxes.
The report of 1841 was excepted to by both plaintiffs and defendants. The third exception of the plaintiffs, was “to allowing any of the claims reported by the commissioner in his special statement, of unsatisfied debts due from the estate of James P. Thompson,” as valid or just claims against the estate. Among the claims reported in that special statement is one of 535 dollars, which was paid by Joseph Meeks to H. Smith the marshal of the Chancery coprt under a decree of the Court to foreclose a prior mortgage upon a part of the land purchased by Meelis. Another claim reported in that special statement, was for 200 dollars which Meeks had paid to Mrs. James P. Thompson for her dower interest in the land purchased by him.
The second exception of Meeks’ administrator was to the failure of the commissioner to allow for the deficiency in the quantity of land purchased by Meeks; twenty-two acres of the , land so purchased being covered by the- better title of Lewis Smith, which at the average price of the whole tract amounted to 133 dollars 73 cents. The fourth exception was because the commissioner failed to embrace in his special statement the amount of a bond from James P. Thompson to Robert Sayers dated the 4th of October 1813 for 180 dollars, the existence of which was proved by Sayers’ executor. The fifth exception was to the refusal of the commissioner to allow to Meeks a credit for the 200 dollars paid to Margaret Thompson the widow of James P. Thompson, for her dower interest in the land.sold to him.
*The cause came on to be heard in April 1845, when the Court overruled the first and second exceptions of the plaintiffs and sustained the third, and overruled all the exceptions of the defendant Meeks’ administrator, and made a decree by which the sale of the land to Joseph Meeks was set aside; and an account of the moneys paid by Meeks which went to the extin-guishment of the debts of James P. Thompson, and also an account of the rents and profits of the land, together with the permanent improvements made by Meeks thereon, was directed. And the commissioner was directed to ascertain the location and quantity of any of the lands of James P. Thompson, directed to be sold in the first instance for the payment of debts which remained unsold. Prom this decree Meeks’ administrator applied to this Court for an appeal, which was allowed.
B. R. Johnston, for the appellant.
Pulton, for the appellees.
See monographic note on “Executors and Administrators.”

Opinion:
ALLEN, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It appearing that when this case was before this Court on a former occasion, it was held that the grant of administration with the will annexed to William P. Thompson was not a void grant, and that the administrator was empowered to make sale of the land charged by the testator with the payment of his debts; and that as the will charged all the lands, the administrator was authorized to sell the whole thereof if such sale became necessary to pay the debts; this Court is of opinion that in the case of such a general charge upon the lands it was not incumbent on the purchaser to look to the application of the purchase money. If the condition of the estate rendered such sale necessary at the time the same was made, and the sale was fair, and the purchase money has been paid, the failure of the administrator to account for and pay over the proceeds to *the creditors of the estate should not impair the title of the vendee. The sale in the present case is shewn to have been for a full price; and the only enquiry left open by the decree of this Court is whether the sale was necessary for the payment of the debts of the testator. In determining this question it is necessary to ascertain what debts were chargeable to the estate, and whether the same could have been discharged without a sale of the land in the proceedings mentioned sold to Joseph Meeks. To the debts appearing due and credited in the administration account, there should, in the opinion of this Court, have been added the debt of S3S dollars paid to H. Smith, the marshal, being the amount of the mortgage on a part of the land sold to Meeks; and also the debt due to Sayers, designated in the 4th exception of the appellants. And there should have been deducted from the amount of assets charged to the administrator the 200 dollars paid to the widow for her dower in the land sold, and the sum claimed for the deficiency in the quantity of the land. It is shewn by the administration account as settled since the former decree of this Court, and which was approved by the Circuit court, that after charging the administrator with the personal assets and the proceeds arising from the sale of the real estate, including the land in controversy, he is in arrear the sum of 1600 dollars 40 cents. This balance would be nearly if not quite extinguished by the proper charges before referred to. The unsold lands are proved to be of but little value; so that without reference to the other debts alleged to have been outstanding and still unsatisfied, it is manifest that the condition of the estate required a sale of the whole of the lands devised, to satisfy the debts of the testator. The Court is therefore of opinion that the Circuit court erred in holding that such sale was unnecessary, and in setting the same aside for that cause: And the sale not being impeached in the bill for any other cause, the bill *of the plaintiffs should have been dismissed as against the representative of Joseph Meeks.
And the Court is further of opinion, as to so much of the bill as seeks an account from the administrator, and the decree in respect to that branch of the case, there is no error in so much thereof as overrules the 1st and 2d exceptions of the appellees and the 1st and 3d exceptions of the appellant to the report of master commissioner Matthews ; but the said Court erred in overruling the 5th exception of the appellant for the failure to allow the administrator credit for 200 dollars, the sum paid the widow for her relinquishment of dower in the lands sold. The 2d and 4th exceptions of the appellant and the 3d exception of the appellees, do not relate to the debits or credits on the administration account, but refer to that branch of the case respecting the indebtedness of the estate and the necessity of a sale of the lands in controversy, and have been before adverted to.
By overruling and sustaining the exceptions applicable to the administration account the balance of 1600 dollars 40 cents ascertained to be due by the report of the master commissioner, and the decree affirming the same, will be reduced by the sum of 200 dollars as aforesaid with intere.st. For the residue of said sum of 1600 dollars 40 cents reduced as aforesaid, together with any other sums since received by the administrator, he is responsible.
It is therefore adjudged and ordered that said decree, so far as it conflicts with this opinion and decree, is erroneous, and that the same be reversed with costs to the appellant ; and this Court proceeding to render such decree as the said Circuit court should have done, it is further adjudged and ordered that the bill of the appellees be dismissed as against the appellant, the representative of said Joseph Meeks, with costs in the Chancery court.
*And the cause is retained as against the said William P. Thompson, the administrator, and remanded with instructions to recommit the same to the commissioner to reform and settle the account according to the principles of this decree, and with instructions to said Court to give notice by proper publication to creditors, if any, whose claims are still valid and unsatisfied, to appear, assert and establish their claims within a period to be prescribed by the Court, and for a decree against said administrator for any balance ascertained upon the principles of this decree, to be due from him, to be applied to the payment of such debts; or paid over to the appellees as the rights of the parties may require.