Case Name: Hudson and Others v. Hudson's Administrator
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1816-10-25
Citations: 5 Munf. 180
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hudson and Others v. Hudson’s Administrator.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 389–391

Head Matter:
Hudson and Others v. Hudson’s Administrator.
Decided, October 25th, 1816.
1. Administration Account — Credits — Repairs. - - An Administrator with the Will annexed having, with the consent of the widow, (who was tenant for life,) made certain additions, the utility and propriety of which were doubtful, and also sundry repairs, toa barn on the land; it was decided that the expense of those additions should be allowed him against the widow only: and of the reasonable repairs, against the widow and children generally.
2. Executors — Private Sale — Liability of Executor.— Tf an Executor or Administrator sell the slaves of his testator intestate, by private contract for ready money, he ought to be charged therefor such sum as they would have sold for upon a rea sonable credit, if the situation of the estate would admit of such credit: and, if not, such a sum as they would have sold for, in cash, at public auction.
3. Same — Purchase of Estate by — Equitable Relief.— A purchase, by an Executor or Administrator of any part of the estate of his testator or intestate, when other persons were deterred from bidding' in consequence of doubts concerning the title, suggested by himself, whereby he obtained the property for less than its value, ought to be annulled by a Court of Equity.
This was a suit in Chancery, in behalf of the widow and children of William C. Hudson deceased, ag'ainst James Henderson, Administrator with the Will annexed. The object of the Bill was to surcharge and falsify the administration account, which had been reported by commissioners, appointed by the County Court of Amelia, on Henderson’s motion, and admitted to record ; shewing a balance due to him, of 2101. 16s. 9%d., on the 24th of February, 1803; subject to credits in the estate’s favour,- amounting too 1171. 2s. lid., for bonds remaining in his hands uncollected. The plaintiffs particularly complained of certain charges, allowed by the commissioners to the defendant for medical services, and also for repairs and additions to a barn upon the plantation, which the widow alleged to be unnecessary, extravagant and injurious to the land; but the Bill contained, moreover, a prayer for a full, true, and fair account of all the sales of the personal estate, &c., and for general relief.
The defendant, by his answer, insisted that the account had already been fully and fairly settled by the commissioners, up to a certain time; that the plaintiff, Mrs. Hudson, was consulted on, and notified of the time and place of their meeting; was actually present while every item passed under their inspection, and acknowledged the whole statement to be agreeable to fact; objecting to nothing, but the charge for medical services, which the commissioners considered just and equitable. He declared himself ready to account for his subsequent *transactions; but admitted that, if the complainant could point out any thing fraudulent, unjust, or untrue in that account, he was ready to settle it over again; but he trusted that the Court would not put him to the trouble of a re-settlement, without the suggestion and proof of something improper and illegal in his conduct.
Many depositions were taken on both sides, from which it appeared that the medical account, to which the plaintiff's objected, had not been improperly allowed; that the repairs and additions to the barn were commenced, upon the sale contemplated by the defendant, with the consent of the widow; when all the timbers had been procured, and the work was far advanced, she made objections, and wished it to be relinquished. The testimony, concerning the utility and propriety of those additions, was doubtful. It was also proved, that the defendant sold, to sundry persons, by private bargains, five negro men belonging to the estate, for 5251. cash, being less than could have been got for them on the same terms, at public auction; that he also sold at auction three boys, and himself became the purchaser, for 1791. 10s. Od.; other persons having been prevented from bidding, by doubts concerning the title, suggested by himself.
A commissioner, (to whom the account was again referred by an order made in the cause,) reported, September 28, 1809, that he had carefully examined the Bill, Answeij and Exhibits, and found plaintiffs justly indebted to the defendant in the sums of 71. 3s. principal, and 81. 10s. 7d. interest, calculated up to the 25th of September,] 1809. In coming to this conclusion, he made no alteration in the account reported by the former commissioners, in which, after examining attentively the accounts and vouchers, together with the depositions of the two surviving commissioners, he could find no error, and therefore only stated the subsequent transactions.
To this report the plaintiffs filed exceptions: 1st, that, upon the evidence, the repairs and additions to the barn ought not to have been allowed: 2dly, that the defendant should have been charged more than 5251., for the five negro men; since it appeared in evidence that they were worth 6701. and would have sold, to the highest bidder, for much more; and he had not pursued, in the sale, the law for regulating the conduct of ^executors and administrators, nor taken that course which a prudent man would have adopted to obtain the best price, or the real value of the negroes: 3dly, that the sale of three negro boys, made in March, 1803, for the sum of 1791. 10s. 0d., ought not to be confirmed ; it- being in proof that the defendant bought them himself, and at a very reduced price, after deterring others from bidding, by exciting doubts as to his right to sell, on account of want of title in his testator, whose right to the slaves in question was in fact indisputable: and 4thly, that the commissioner had improperly allowed the defendant (by confirming the former account,) the sum of 71. 17s. 4d., for certain plains (for negro clothing) purchased in 1802, of James Robertson, jr., ‘ ‘when it was proved that they were damaged, and of no value, and the defendant bought them of Robertson, knowing their quality, in order to discount a debt due him from said Robertson. ”
The County Court sustained the first exception, and accordingly disallowed the defendant the sum of 1071. 5s. llj^d., charged for repairs and additions to the barn; and, considering that the commissioner ought to have allowed the plaintiffs the real value of the negroes, mentioned in the second exception, ordered, that the sum of 1551. be added to the sum allowed by the commissioner for the said negroes, and be charged to the defendant. It also set aside and annulled the sale of the slaves mentioned in the third exception, and decreed that the defendant deliver to the plaintiffs the last mentioned slaves, or such of them as were alive; and overruled the 4th exception.
Upon an appeal by the defendant to the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, this decree was reversed, and another pronounced, in conformity with the report ox the commissioner, dated September 28th, 1809, that the plaintiffs pay to the defendant the sum of 151. 14s. 234d., with interest on 71. 3s. 7j4d., part thereof, from the 2Sth of September, 1809, until paid, and his costs: whereupon they appealed to this Court.
See monographic note on “Executors and Administrators” appended to Rosser v. Depriest, 5 Gratt. 6.
The principal case was cited in Harvey v. Steptoe, 17 Gratt. 303.
Note. It was proved that the plains were damaged, and that the overseer, on that account, considered them of no value; and objected to receiving' them; but the negroes were clothed with them, and possibly they might have been worth what was given for them by the administrator. — Note in Original Edition.

Opinion:
«-Friday, October 25th, 1816,
JUDGE) ROANE)
pronounced the Court's opinion, as follows:—
The Court being of opinion that the Appellant Mrs. Hudson consented to the repairs made upon the barn in the proceedings mentioned, is farther of opinion that the sum expended thereupon by the Appellee should be allowed him, to be paid by Mrs. Hudson as tenant for life of the premises, except such part thereof as may be deemed adequate to reasonable repairs upon the same, which should be allowed to him in his account as administrator.
The Court is farther of opinion that, instead of the charge of five hundred and twent3'-five pounds, for which five negro fellows were sold by the Appellee at private sales, he ought to have been charged therefor such a sum as the same would have sold for upon a reasonable credit, if (in the opinion of the Court of Chancery) the situation of the estate would admit of such credit; and, if not, that he should be charged with such a sum as the same would have sold for in cash, at public auction.
The Court is also of opinion, that the purchase of the three negro boys in the proceedings mentioned, having been made by the Appellee, under circumstances on his part which tended to deter others from purchasing them, and caused him to get them for less than their value, ought to be set aside in favour of the estate, and the Appellee charged with their hires. Therefore, it is decreed and ordered, that so much of the said decree as conflicts with this opinion be reversed and annulled, and the residue thereof affirmed; and that the cause be remanded, to be finally proceeded in pursuant to the principles of this decree.