Case Name: Harshman et al v. Slonaker et al.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1880-04-23
Citations: 53 Iowa 467
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harshman et al v. Slonaker et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 467–469

Head Matter:
Harshman et al v. Slonaker et al.
1. Estate: allowance to widow: review of. An order reducing-the allowance made to a widow for her support, under section 2875 of the Code, can only take effect upon the balance of the former allowance unexpended by her at the time the petition for review of such allowance is filed; she cannot be required to account for any portion expended by her while the allowance is unquestioned.
Appeal from, Lee Oi/rcuit Gowrt.
Friday, April 23.
The defendant Amelia H. Slonaker is the widow of L. M. Slonaker, deceased. The plaintiffs, Erank Harshman and Henry Singer, are creditors of the estate of L. M. Slonaker. They complain of an allowance made to the widow for her support, and also of a purchase made by her at her own sale of certain real property belonging to tbe estate. Tbe allowance made was $800. Tbe plaintiffs filed a petition for reviewing and reducing tbe same, on tbe ground that it was excessive. Tbe real estate purchased by ber was purchased for $750. Tbe plaintiffs aver that, it is worth $900, and ask that she be ordered to hold tbe same in trust for tbe estate, or be charged with tbe difference between what she paid and its value.
Tbe court sustained tbe petition for reviewing and reducing tbe allowance, and ordered that it be reduced to $350, and that Mrs. Slonaker be held to account for tbe balance. It also, ordered that she be charged with tbe sum of $85 as tbe difference between what she paid for tbe real estate and its value. Mrs. Slonaker appeals. ’ '
Craig <& Collier, for appellant.
IfeCrary, Hagermcm <& MoCrcury, for appellees.

Opinion:
Adams, Ch. J.
Section 2375 of tbe Code provides that tbe court may make an allowance to tbe widow for ber support for twelve months. Section 2377 of. tbe Code provides for a review of the allowance, and a reduction of the same if tbe court shall be satisfied that it is too large.
It is not expressly provided within what time a petition for tbe review of tbe allowance should be filed. But we are not left without an indication. If an allowance is to be reduced it should be done while ther'e is something ripon which tbe reduction could operate. If tbe administrator lias paid over to tbe widow tbe amount allowed, and especially if she has expended it, a mere order reducing tbe allowance would have no effect. Tbe appellant insists in this case that tbe petition for review was filed too late. It was filed one year and seven months after tbe order of allowance was made.
No question arises as to whether tbe amount bad been paid over by tbe administrator to the widow, as the widow herself was administrator. If there was anything in her hands upon which the reduction could operate, the court might doubtlesh, in its discretion, make the reduction. There is some evidence tending to show that she has expended her allowance, but it is not important for us to inquire what the fact is in that respect. It is proper that- the order. for a reduction should stand, and she must respect it to the extent of any unexpended balance of the allowance in her hands. But we think that the court below went too far in making an order that she should, account for the amount of the reduction. If she has expended it, such fact does not constitute a ground of recovery against her. The statute affords no warrant for any such proceeding. The creditors can look only to the assets unless the administrator has been guilty of a misappropriation. But the spending of an allowance before it is questioned cannot be deemed a misappropriation, especially if it is not questioned 'until after the lapse of the year for which the allowance was .made.
As to the property bought by Mrs. Slonaker, we have to say that we see no error in. requiring her to pay the difference between its value and what she had already paid. MThere trustees are charged with the duty of selling trust property they should sell for the best price which they can properly obtain. They cannot become buyers at their own sales without occupying á position inconsistent with their duty as trustees. Such sales, therefore, may be set aside at the option of the beneficiaries. In this case, however, Mrs. Slonaker had made repairs upon the property, and she was allowed to retain it upon paying enough to make the full value thereof at .the .time she bought.
Modified and Affirmed.