Court Opinion

ID: 8126163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 15:06:39.967225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:13.677062
License: Public Domain

(August 24, 1887.)
On rehearing the following opinion was delivered:
Wheeler, J.
Since the filing of the decision and decretal order in this cause, and before entry or signature of any decree pursuant thereto, on motion of the orator, further hearing has been had as to charging the assets of the estate of Hiram Bellows, which have passed to Margaret B. Sowles, trustee of Susan B. Sowles, with the assessment upon 30 shares of stock of the national bank, of which the orator is receiver, still held by the executor. At this stage of the case correction of any oversight or error can be made on suggestion of any party, or by the court of its own motion. Such correction is not the alteration of a decree, for as yet there is no decree; hut is a mere change of the directions for a decree, if necessary, which may always be done until the directions, as finally settled, are carried into the decree itself and the decree is entered.
On re-examination of the case on this point, which was not made on the argument in chief, it fully appears that, at the time of the creation of the debts of the hank, on account of which this assessment is made necessary, there were estates 'and funds in the hands of the executor, which were of the testator, to an amount several times greater than this assessment upon this stock. It is said in argument that the title to these assets had before that time vested in (he legatees under the decrees of distribution. None of these assets were specifically bequeathed or distributed to the legatee. A legacy of $25,000 was bequeathed to her by the testator. The decrees were made on representations by the executor that he had more than sufficient assets in his hands to satisfy all debts, legacies, and charges. Thereupon he was decreed to pay this legacy. He had not done so at the time of the failure of the bank, which, of course, was after the accruing of these liabilities of the bank. He has since assumed to pay it out of these assets by delivering them to the trustee at agreed prices, in satisfaction of the legacy. The statutes of *140the United States provide that the estates and funds in the hands of an executor shall be holden as the testator would have been holden. This statute fixed the lien upon these assets, and it would follow them, wherever they should go, in any subsequent division or distribution of them. The delivery of them by the executor subsequent to this did not remove them away from the lien, but left them in the hands of the trustee of the legatee, or in the hands of the legatee, if they had reached her, subject tq the lien as before. The statutes of the state make heirs, devisees, and legatees, .who have received assets of an estate, liable for debts,—chargeable for the debts,—to the extent of the assets received. Rev. Laws Vt. § 2209. This is not a debt of the testator, but is a liability of the estates, and funds in the hands of the executor, which attaches to them in the same manner that a debt of the testator would if contracted when he had the same assets. They may be followed, therefore, in the same manner. It is said that some of these assets are real estate, and that such estate goes to the residuary, and not to the pecuniary, legatee, or the executor. But the statutes of the state leave real estate in the hands of the executor, if needed to pay debts or legacies, (Rev. Laws, § 2137;) and the statutes of the United States make no distinction in the kinds of estates and funds which are left in his hands, hut make all that are left liable. Rev. St.-U. S. § 5152. If this was not so, a large part of the assets so delivered by the executor were strictly personalty, and a still larger part redeemable leases reserving annual rent, which are in the nature of mortgages, and go to the executor, and not todhe heir. It is not disputable, and conceded, that the amount of the latter is greater than this liability. The legatee and trustee are chargeable, therefore, with the amount of this assessment.
So much of the decretal order heretofore entered herein as directs that the bill be dismissed as to Susan B. Sowles, and Margaret B. Sowles, trustee for her, is hereby vacated. And there is added thereto that the decree provide that in default of payment by the defendant Edward A. Sowles, executor, payment be made by the defendant, Susan B. Sowles, or Margaret B. Sowles, her trustee, within 10 days thereafter; and, in default of such payment, that execution issue against the assets of the estate of Hiram Bellows, in the hands of Edward A. Sowles, executor; and for want thereof against such assets in the hands of Margaret B. Sowles, trustee of Susan B. Sowles; and for want thereof against the goods, chattels, and estate of Susan B. Sowles, in her own hands, or in the hands of Margaret B. Sowles, trustee.