Case Name: The Ordinary of Charleston vs. Samuel H. Mortimer
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1851-01
Citations: 4 Rich. 271
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Ordinary of Charleston vs. Samuel H. Mortimer.
Judges: Evans, Withers and Whitner, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 271–286

Head Matter:
The Ordinary of Charleston vs. Samuel H. Mortimer.
A paper referred to in a replication, cannot, like an exhibit to a bill in equity, be considered as part of the record, and be the subject of demurrer; semble.
A failure by an administrator to account before the Ordinary when cited to do so, is a breach of his administration bond, for which his sureties may be sued; semble.
In order to maintain an action on an administration bond,, it is not necessary that the Ordinary’s decree should direct a specific sum to be paid to each distributee ; or that it should find the number of distributees, and the proportion to which each is entitled ; such a decree, made at the instance of one distributee, is sufficient, if it merely finds that the administrator is indebted to his intestate’s estate in a gross sum, and directs him to pay the amount to the parties who may be legally entitled thereto.
Before O’Neall, J., at Charleston, May Term, 1850.
This was an action of debt against the defendant as surety on the administration bond of Thomas J. Gantt, administrator of John Ballantine, deceased. The defendant pleaded non est factum and performance. To the plea of performance the plaintiff replied as follows: “ And the said M. T. Mendenhall, by John Phillips, his attorney, comes and says : that he, by anything by the said Samuel H. Mortimer in pleading alleged, ought not to be precluded from having and maintaining his action aforesaid against him, the said Samuel H. Mortimer, because he says that the aforementioned Thomas J. Gantt, administrator of all and singular the goods and chattels, rights and credits, which were of John Ballantine at the time of his death, who died intestate, did not from time to time and at all times, after the making of the said writing obligatory, and the said condition thereof, well and truly observe, perform, fulfil, and keep, all and singular the articles, clauses, payments, conditions and agreements in the said writing obligatory, and condition thereof, specified and mentioned, in all things therein contained, on his part and behalf to be performed and done, according to the true intent and meaning of the said condition of the said writing obligatory, in this, to-wit: that on the sixth day of September, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and thirty-six, the said Thomas J. Gantt, administrator aforesaid, filed an inventory and appraisement of the personal estate of the said intestate, John Ballantine, amounting to sixteen hundred and fifty dollars, and that he has never filed or given any account of his administration thereof. That thereupon, Melzar Collins and Mary Jane Collins, his wife, and one of the distributees of the said estate, filed, by John Phillips, their proctor, in the Court of Ordinary for Charleston district, a petition, praying that he, the said Thomas J. Gantt, administrator aforesaid, might be cited to account in that Court in that behalf. A citation was accordingly issued from that Court, requiring said administrator to account on the twentienth day of April, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and forty-nine; but the said Thomas J. Gantt, administrator aforesaid, did not so account, as required by law, and therefore' no other data being in possession of the Court, than the inventory and appraisement aforesaid, from which a conclusion could have been had of the estate in the hands of the said administrator; in consequence whereof, it was decreed by the said Court of Ordinary for said district, that the said administrator is indebted to the said intestate’s estate in- the sum of sixteen hundred and fifty dollars, and that he do pay the same to the parties who may be legally entitled thereto; as in and by the record of the said decree in the Ordinary’s office, (a copy whereof is herewith filed,) will more fully appear; which said sum of sixteen hundred and fifty dollars, with interest thereon, the said Samuel H. Mortimer, although often required, hath hitherto wholly neglected and refused to pay and satisfy, and still doth refuse and neglect so to. do. And this the said M. T. Mendenhall, Ordinary as aforesaid, is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment and his debt aforesaid, together with his damages, to be adjudged to him, and so forth.”
The following is a copy of the Ordinary’s decree referred to in the replication :
Statk of South Carolina, ? T , n , f n i; ) Charleston District, mh April 1849. \ ln the °0Urt oí Urdm y'
“ In the matter of the estate of John Ballantine, deceased.
“ The petition of Melzar Collins and Mary Jane Collins, his wife, and one of the distributees of said estate, having been filed in this Court by John Phillips, esquire, their proctor, shewing that Thomas J. Gantt, esquire, administered on the estate of John Ballantine, deceased, on the eleventh of August, Anno Domini eighteen hundred and thirty-six; that on'the sixth day of September thereafter, he filed an inventory and appraisement of the personal estate of the said intestate, amounting to sixteen hundred and fifty dollars ; that the administrator never filed nor gave any account of his administration thereof, and praying that he might be cited to account in this Court in that behalf j a citation was accordingly issued from this Court requiring said administrator to account, on the twentieth instant ^by^said Thomas J. Gantt, administrator as aforesaid, did n^sif^pogp^as required by law, and therefore no other data i|¡#^q$sbssion.^&t|¿is Court, than the inventory and appraisement JffforesaMpjhhn Vhich a conclusion may be had of the esta^^th^i^ds of sggd administrator. In consequence of the saidlhq^|ect and, ^fiusajF to account, I do hereby decree that said adminfetp^Jbr is Maebted to the said intestate’s estate sixteen hundradandfij%®ollars, and that he do pay the said sum to the parties who may be legally entitled thereto. Given under my hand and the seal of the said Court, at Charleston, this twentieth day of April, Anno Domini eighteen hundred and forty-nine.
“ M. T. MENDENHALL, O. C. D.”
To the replication the defendant demurred specially, and assigned the following causes of demurrer, to wit: “ that in and by the said replication, the said plaintiff sets out a decree of the Ordinary, for the district aforesaid, on the petition of Melzar Collins and Mary Jane Collins, his wife, and one of the distri-butees of the estate of John Ballantine, deceased, against the said Thomas J. Gantt, administrator as aforesaid, but that the decree so set out and made part of the said replication, does not establish that the said Melzar Collins and Mary Jane, his wife, are entitled to a distributive share of the estate of John Bailan-tine, deceased. That the said decree does not ascertain and settle the amount of the distributive share of the said Melzar Collins and Mary Jane, his wife, in the said estate of John Bal- lantine. That no specified sum is ascertained to be due to the petitioners, Melzar Collins and Mary Jane, his wife, by the said decree. That no specified sum is ascertained to be due by the said Thomas J. Gantt, to any person or persons whomsoever. That no liability to pay any sum of money whatsoever, is established against the said Thomas J. Gantt, as administrator, as aforesaid. That the said replication seis out that .the said Samuel H. Mortimer did not perform the said condition of the said bond as surety, in that he did not pay interest on the sum of sixteen hundred and fifty dollars, when the said decree of the Ordinary has not ascertained any interest to be due by the said Thomas J. Gantt, administrator as aforesaid; and also for that the said replication is in other respects uncertain, informal and insufficient, and so forth.”
His Honor the presiding Judge overruled the demurrer; and the defendant appealed, and now moved that the judgment of his Honor be reversed.
James Simons, for the motion,
contended that the decree should have ascertained who the distributees were, the amount each was entitled to; and that a decree for a gross sum was insufficient. He cited Rice, 384; 1 Bail. 7 ; 1 Bail. 25; 2 N. & McC. 213 ; 2 Rich. 91; 3 McC. 412; 4 McC. 113 ; 2 Rich. 379; 1 Bail. 130) 2 Bay. 542 ; 3 McC. 237. The action here might as well have been on the inventory and appraisement, for the decree ascertains nothing more. How is the verdict upon this decree to be found ? Is evidence aliunde admissible to shew how many distributees there are, and what proportion of the estate Mrs. Collins is entitled to ? If so, then a decree, before suit on the bond, would seem to be unnecessary.
Phillips, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, per
O'Neall, J.
In this case I think if the objections made be regarded, as they should be, as arising out of the pleading alone, that there can be nothing plainer than that they cannot be sustained. All the causes of demurrer are set down as objections to the Ordinary's decree. These, according to my notions of pleading and evidence, are objections to the evidence, and not to the pleading. For although in the replication a copy of the decree is referred to, as herewith filed, yet that made it no part of the pleading. For until a paper is incorporated into a plea, or replication, and set out as on oyer, it is no part of the record. It cannot be that a paper referred to, like an exhibit in a bill in equity, can be considered as part of the record, and be the subject of demurrer. When the case comes to trial, and the decree is offered in evidence, then its sufficiency to charge the defendant will be in issue, but not before. Waiving this very conclusive objection to the demurrer, and taking up the case on the defendant's objections, as if made to the replication, I think still they cannot be sustained.
The administration bond on which this action is brought, is conditioned, 1st. That the administrator will, when required by the Ordinary, file an inventory; 2d, That he shall administer according to law; 3d, That he shall make a just and true account of his actings and doings, when required by the Ordinary; and 4th, " All the rest and residue of such goods, chattels and credits, which shall be found remaining upon the account of the said administration, the same being first allowed by the said Court, shall deliver and pay unto such persons, respectively, as are entitled to the same by law."
To the declaration on the penalty of the bond, the defendant, after oyer of the bond and the condition, pleaded performance ; the plaintiff replied traversing the performance, and assigned for breach, that Melzar Collins and wife, she being one of the dis-tributees of the intestate, filed a petition, praying that the admin-istrátor might account, touching his administration, before the Ordinary; that thereupon, he (the Ordinary) issued his citation to account; that the administrator failed to account, and thereupon the Ordinary charged him with the whole estate according to the inventory, amounting to $1650, and decreed that he should pay the same to the parties who may be legally entitled to the same, which he has failed to do.
Let it be asked, does this not shew a breach of the condition of the bond 1 Clearly it does, in two respects : 1st, The administrator did not acconnt when the Ordinary required him to do so : 2d, He has not paid to the parties entitled, the sum which was found remaining after his administration. This is a breach within the very words of the condition, and how can the Court say that such a replication is bad ?
But let us examine a little more directly the defendant's causes of demurrer. The 1st, 2d, and 3d, (and they are all which were argued) in substance are the same; they make the question, whether, before a suit on the administration bond can be sustained, it is necessary for the Ordinary to ascertain and decree a specific sum to each of the distributees of an intestate's estate. That the affirmative of this question presents a very convenient and advisable course of practice to be pursued by the Ordinary, is true. And it may even be prudent for this plaintiff to have the Ordinary's decree amended in this particular, and when so done, by leave of the Court, to amend his replication accordingly. Yet there is nothing to prevent the action from being sustained as it now stands. The demurrer admits that the wife of Melzar Collins is a distributee of the intestate; that they demanded an account from the administrator before the Ordinary, which he required, but the administrator failed to make it, and thereupon he was charged with the inventory, and ordered to pay its amount, $1650, to the parties entitled, and that he has failed to do it. This admits his default and liability. Still the defendant says, first, it does not appear that Melzar Collins and wife are entitled to a distributive share of the estate. It is true, it is not' in words said so; but still that is the fair intendment from the words used; for the replication alleges that the wife of Collins is a dis-tributee ; that they demanded the account, and thereupon the decree was rendered. It would be a strange notion about the effect of a decree, if the party, who obtained it on the allegation that he was entitled as a distributee, should not be considered as thereby having his right established. , I therefore take it as indisputable, that their right to claim one share of the estate, whatever that may be, is conclusively settled. But it is said, secondly, that it does not appear how much is to be paid to them by the administrator. Is there any thing in that objection? Surely not. The administrator's liability is fixed at $1650, which is the whole estate. The plaintiffs are entitled to one share of it, and have got this decree. Looked on as a matter of pleading, and on demurrer, they have thereby shewn a' breach of the condition, and are entitled to judgment for the penalty. It is when the condition conies to be submitted, that the objection to the decree arises as matter of evidence. It is then alleged by. the defendant, your decree is uncertain ; the plaintiffs reply, id cerium est, quod cerium reddi potest, and give evidence that there are a widow and two children, distributees ; and that Mrs. Collins is one of the said children ; it is thus made a very small sum in arithmetic, which can be solved by one of its simplest rules, division; and by it let us divide the estate, $1650, into three parts : — $550 is the result to which the plaintiffs are entitled. Cannot a Court and jury thus solve the problem, and do right? But it is said the-Court has declared itself incompetent to ascertain the share of a distributee. I deny that it ever has laid down any such absurd proposition. It has again and again declared, that the administrator's.accounts must be settled in the Court of Ordinary, or Court of Equity, before a suit on the administration bond will be allowed. For this rule one good reason, because the Court of law could not, from its organization, satisfactorily adjust them, has been assigned. This, however, arose ex necessitate, or from convenience ; but the best of all reasons is, that until the account is settled, and a sum ascertained for distribution, either upon an account had, or upon the administrator's failure to account, and non-payment of the same, there is no breach of the bond, authorizing it to be put in suit.
By the 31st section of the Act of 1789, (5 ¡Stat. 110,) construed ;in connection with the 30th section, it is provided that the bond of an administrator "may be sued from time to time by any person injured by the breach thereof, until the whole penalty be recovered ; and the damages sustained being assessed, on such suit, by the verdict of a jury, may be levied by execution, and paid to the party for whom they were assessed." Every one, according to this provision, shewing a breach of the bond, is entitled to have his damages assessed by a jury. The plaintiffs here have shewn the breach, and are entitled to have their damages assessed — unless our Courts, contrary to the Act, have excluded them. This, it is plain, they neither could nor would do. In the Ordinary vs. Williams & Parkman, (1 N. & McC. 587,) it was very properly held that, until the administrator was cited to account, (speaking of a case where no account had been had,) there could be no suit on the bond. This was because, until the condition was shown to be broken, the plaintiff had sustained no legal injury. In the case before us there has been a citation, and the administrator has failed to account. This shews a legal injury, and the Court cannot say we will refuse to you the right to have your damages assessed on the condition. In Simkins vs. Powers, (2 N. & McC. 213,) the same ruling is repeated. The case does not go beyond' it;. for the estate had not been settled in the Court of Ordinary, nor had any citation been issued. In Cureton vs. Shelton, (3 McC. 412,) the case now before us is found. There the decree of the Court of Equity, as set out in the replication, found a gross sum for distribution, and three of the distributees averred in the replication that they were entitled to a sum in gross among them, part of that decree, as their distributive shares. It was held that they were entitled to recover. Such an objection as that under consideration was not thought of on that occasion. The very difficulty here had to be met there; How many distributees were they? — .how much was each entitled to ? The Court met and overcame the difficulty there, as it will here.
The case from 15 Eng. C. L. R. 174, Archbishop of Canterbury vs. Tappen, is in exact conformity to our cases, and is just such an authority as I would hold up and rely upon here. It ruled that an administrator was not bound, by the condition of his bond, to distribute the surplus of the intestate's estate, after payment of debts, &c., until a decree, directing him to do so, has; been made by the Court into which his inventory and account have been exhibited. What that case required, has been done here.
The motion is dismissed.
Evans, Withers and Whitner, JJ., concurred.