Court Opinion

ID: 9808913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:53:58.160081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:20:07.233468
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.,
dissenting. On September 5, 1892, the plaintiffs, M. C. James, R. A. Neal, William James, Pleasant James and Eaucett Odell, made a written contract with the County Commissioners that if they would cause the stomach of C. W. James to be examined, all the expenses thereof should “be paid by the personal representatives and administrator of said James out of our distributive share of his estate, and that the receipt of said administrator for said expenses shall be a valid voucher for him in the administration of said estate.” At that time.the only property belonging to the estate of the deceased was a bond for $2,250, secured by a trust deed on realty. The parties above named *724were then the distributees of 0. W. James, and the aforesaid contract was upon good consideration, and^ amounted -to an equitable assignment pro tanto of their interest in the estate. It was not a mere order upon the administrator, but a binding contract that the receipt for the amount so paid should be a valid voucher in the settlement of the estate.
Subsequently, the said plaintiffs arranged with the obligor of the bond and mortgagor to surrender the bond, and take over the realty in its stead. Ry this arrangement, the only asset of the estate was now realty, and the plaintiffs became heirs-at-law instead of distributees; but this act of theirs can not in equity have tire effect of destroying the rights of third parties. The Commissioners have no lien on the realty, but they were pro■ tanto assignees of the personal estate; they did not assent to its being changed into realty, and, to the extent of their claim the fund remains stamped with the nature of personalty. The realty should be reconverted into personalty by a sale of enough of the plaintiffs* shares to pay the expenses, which on' the faith of the agreement of the plaintiffs the Commissioners expended at the instance and request of the plaintiffs. The county should not be “jockeyed” by the plaintiffs out of that money thus expended.