Case Name: Grundy's Administrators against Simpson's Heirs
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1839-04-27
Citations: 8 Dana 140
Docket Number: 
Parties: Grundy’s Administrators against Simpson’s Heirs.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 140–147

Head Matter:
Grundy’s Administrators against Simpson’s Heirs.
Chancery.
[Mr. McHenry for plaintiffs: no appearance for defendants.]
From the Circuit Court eor Marion County.
April 27.
An adm’r having commissioners the his account as admimstrator? reported a etonds and they invesments the Husband of one of the distributees and the guardians of others, & obtained their receipts for specified sums — paid in full. Five years afterwards, the distributees filed a bill in chancery against the administrators, praying a decree for distribution, without noticing the former settlements and receipts in full. The administrators answered, relying upon the receipts, and — alleging that they had paid more than was due — they make their answer a cross-bill, and ask a decree for restitution. It appears that the aggregate of the sums specified in the receipts, was something less than the balance reported upon the county court settlement, and the circuit court rendered a decree for the difference, with a larger sum for interest, — disregarding the terms “in full," in the receipts — although no mistake or fraud in the sattlements or receipts, was charged. And that decree is approved and affirmed here.
The receipts in full, it seems, are not so conclusive upon the distributees, as they would have been it they themselves (instead of their guardians) had made the settlements.
The allegations of over-payments, in the cross-hill, are not sufficiently specific, to authorize them to be taken as confessed; and as the cross-bill is not expressly dismissed, by the decree rendered, and may be still pending (it is said,) this court will not disturb the decree on the original bill, because of the omission to decree upon the cross-bill.

Opinion:
Judge Ewing
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Interest was properly allowed; so also, was the two hundred and fifty dollars allowed in the settlement as interest on notes and bonds for slave hire. And the allegation in the cross bill, as to the overpayment to Thomas Simpson, is not sufficiently specific to authorize a decree over against him, by taking the cross bill f°r confessed. No overpayment is charged; nor any grounds laid for the decree over, except that which rested upon the mistake in allowing interest on bonds and notes for slave hire, which is not sustained.
[By Mr. McHenry.]
To allow a decree over, against him without any specific allegation turning his attention to 'an overpayment to him on other grounds, might lead to surprise and do injustice. Besides, though the bill of Thomas Simpson has been dismissed, the cross bill has not been dismissed, or otherwise disposed of. It may yet be depending, for aught this Court can know. Be that as it may — the dismissal of the original bill is not necessarily a disposition of the cross bill as to him; and it may yet be disposed of properly. At least, this Court cannot reverse for a failure to make a decree upon the cross bill, but only for error in the decree when made.
Decree affirmed.