Case Name: J. B. Floyd & Wife vs. D. B. Priester, et al., Adm'rs
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1855-07
Citations: 8 Rich. Eq. 248
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. B. Floyd & Wife vs. D. B. Priester, et al., Adm’rs.
Judges: DüNKIN and Waedlaw, CC., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 248–258

Head Matter:
J. B. Floyd & Wife vs. D. B. Priester, et al., Adm’rs.
Upon a petition to open a settlement and surcharge the account, it is proper to open it so as to correct errors on both sides.
Where the amount duo by a deceased guardian to his ward, is paid over by the administrator of the guardian to the ward, commissions for paying it over are not allowed.
BEFORE JOHNSTON, OH., AT NEWBERRY, JULY, 1855.
In 1846, J. P. Neel was appointed, by the Court of Equity, the guardian of the petitioner, Drucilla A. Floyd, (then Dru-cilla A. Williams,) and received considerable sums of money for his ward; all of which he returned, except the sum of two hundred and seventy-four dollars and sixty-nine cents, received by him from the Commissioner in Equity on the 3d day of March, 1846. The petitioners intermarried in 1850; J. P. Neel, the guardian, died in June, 1851, without having made a settlement with his said ward. The defendants administered on his estate ; and on the 23d day of July, 1851, procured a settlement to be made of said ward’s estate, as contained in J. P. Neel’s returns, (omitting by mistake in the settlement, which was intended as a full one, the two hundred and seventy-four dollars and sixty-nine cents,) and paid over to the petitioners the amount ascertained by said settlement. In this settlement no commissions were credited to the estate of J. P. Neel, for paying out the amount ascertained to be due by said settlement, the defendants supposing they were not entitled to the same. The petition is filed in this case to make the said administrators of J. P. Neel, deceased, account for, and pay over to the petitioners the said sum of two hundred and seventy-four dollars and sixty-nine cents, with interest from the 3d of March, 1846. The defendants filed their answer, in which they admit the facts, and consent to the payment of the sum claimed in the petition, upon the condition that the said settlement should be opened and commissions allowed to the estate of their intestate, for paying out the sum ascertained by said settlement.
His Honor decreed that the estate of J. P. Neel was entitled to two and a half commissions for paying out the sum ascertained by the said settlement, and five per cent, for receiving and paying out the sum of two hundred and seventy-four dollars and sixty-nine cents, claimed in the petition, and that his estate account for and pay over to the petitioners the amount claimed by them, subject to these deductions.
The petitioners appealed on the grounds :
1. Because it is respectfully submitted, that his Honor erred in ruling that the estate of J. P. Neel was entitled to two and a half commissions for paying out his ward’s estate, although it was in his hands at his death, and was paid out by his administrator after his death, upon a settlement.
2. Because his Honor erred in ruling that after a settlement had been made, and the money paid over without allowing commissions, that it could be opened and commissions allowed.
Jones, for appellant.
Cfarlington, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
D AEG AN, Ch.
Defendants' intestate was the guardian of plaintiff's wife. After the decease of the guardian, there was a settlement in full between his administrator's, the defendants, and the plaintiffs upon the guardianship accounts. In this settlement there was an inadvertent omission of a credit to •which the plaintiffs were entitled. The guardian had received a sum of money (two hundred a.nd seventy-four dollars and sixty-nine cents) with whieh he was not charged in the settlement. " In this settlement no commissions were credited to the estate of the guardian for paying out the amount ascertained to be due by the said settlement, the defendants supposing they were not entitled to the same."
The plaintiffs filed a petition against the administrators of the guardian, to open the settlement, and to surcharge the account of the guardian by crediting the ward with the said sum accidentally or inadvertently omitted as above stated. To this the defendants did not object, but insisted, that in opening the settlement it should be opened on both sides, and that in restating the account, the estate of the guardian should be credited with the commissions to which he was entitled and which had been omitted. The presiding Chancellor decreed, that the settlement should be opened on this condition.
The plaintiffs' second ground of appeal is, because the Chancellor " erred in ruling, that after a settlement had been made, and the money paid over without allowing commissions, it could be opened, and commissions allowed." The Chancellor did not, and I apprehend would not have opened the settlement simply for the purpose of allowing commissions, under the circumstances of this case. But the plaintiffs asked that the settlement should be opened for their benefit, and for the purpose of correcting an error which operated against them. The Chancellor decreed, that the settlement should be opened on the condition that errors should be corrected on both sides. Surely this is even-handed justice. That he who asks equity must do equity, is a maxim of this Court. This Court is of opinion, that the principle upon which the settlement was opened is correct, and the appeal in this respect is overruled.
But upon the question, whether the estate of the guardian was entitled to be credited with commissions for paying out the funds of the ward on a settlement with the administrators of the guardian, after tbe decease of the guardian, this Court entertains a different opinion from that of the Chancellor who tried this cause on circuit. The guardian died with the funds of his ward in his hands. The guardianship is a personal trust, and its duties, responsibilities and rights are not transmitted to his legal representatives, who are only to hold and take care of the ward's funds, and to account for, and to pay them over to the party who may be legally entitled to receive them as a common debt of his intestate, or testator, (as the case may be,) and for which the administrators are entitled to commissions as on the payment of any other debt of their intestate.
It is certainly true, that the commissions allowed to a guardian is the compensation which the law gives for all his services and responsibilities connected with the appointment. But whatever may be his services and responsibilities, he is not entitled .to his two and a half per cent, for receiving, until he does receive, nor to his two and a half per cent, for paying out, until he does fdy out. Until this is done, he has not earned his commissions, or consummated his right thereto. And according to the language of the Act, it must be done in the course of his management or administration. Commissions were not allowed at Common Law. They depend entirely upon statutory provisions, and he who claims them must take them according to the terms of the only charter by which they were allowed.
A factor or other agent may be entitled to two and a half per cent, on all moneys paid away on account of his principal. Would the estate of a deceased factor be entitled to two and a half per cent, on the sum of one thousand dollars found in his hands, at the time of his death, belonging to his principal ? It is difficult to perceive a distinction. The duties of the guardian and of the factor, as such, both end with their lives; and the compensation for their services are then fixed. The amount due to the ward, or to the principal, is a debt due and unpaid; and the right to recover which is suspended bj law for a certain period. On the death of the guardian, the duty of paying this, as all other debts, devolves on his legal representative, who, in turn, is compensated by law for paying over this sum remaining in the hands of the intestate at the time of his death.
The case of Ex parte Witherspoon (3 Rich. Eq., 13) is very analogous to this. There, as here, the guardian had died with the funds of his' ward in his hands.' There was another guardian appointed. And on a settlement by the administrator of the deceased guardian with his successor in the guardianship, and on the payment of the ward's funds to him, it was held, that the estate of the former was not entitled to commissions for paying out, upon the principle, that by the death of the first guardian, the guardianship had ceased to exist before the money was paid out, and the commissions had not been earned by paying out money in the course of his administration as guardian.
It is ordered and decreed, that the circuit decree be modified according to the principles of this appeal decree, that the case be remanded to the Circuit Court, and that the Commissioner restate the account, and conform his report with this decree.
DüNKIN and Waedlaw, CC., concurred.