Miller v. . Knox ( 1872 )

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] The finding that in the final decree of the surrogate the plaintiff was to be paid ratably with the other creditors is not only without proof to sustain it, but the evidence furnished by the decree itself is to the contrary. The error being rather in favor of the defendants than otherwise, is not a ground of exception by them; nor does the finding that the plaintiff did not appear in the proceedings before the surrogate after filing his objection, though not literally accurate, prejudice the defendants, unless he appeared, waiving his objection against the right of the defendants to include as assets, to be distributed among the creditors, the rent which had accrued out of the leasehold premises since the death of Edward Knox. He did not present his claim to the defendants as one against the estate, verified in any way in compliance with the order of the surrogate, or do any other act from which it could be inferred that he intended to waive his protest against the right of the defendants or of the surrogate to appropriate the income of his property to those to whom it never belonged, and who not as against the plaintiff had the slightest equitable claim to it. On the contrary, as is quite clear from the facts that the estate was insolvent, the income from it much less than the rent reserved, and that he withdrew from before the auditor, before his report was made, and commenced this action, he never intended to submit the claim sued upon to the judgment of that officer.

The finding that the defendants, immediately after their appointment as administrators, entered into the possession of the demised premises, and continued therein and collected the rents therefrom until the first day of June, 1864, is fully sustained by their account rendered to the surrogate; and although that account does not contain an admission, in terms, that they entered into possession of the premises, the admitted fact that they collected the rents for that period amounts to the same thing. (In re Galloway, 21 Wend., 32, 33.) The conclusion of law, that the proceedings before the surrogate were no bar to this action, was, upon principle, right, and is fully sustained by authority. The estate of Edward Knox was worth but about twenty per cent of his indebtedness; the value of the leasehold estate did not, since his death, exceed in amount the rent reserved; and hence nothing came to the defendants' hands to be divided among his creditors. (Toller, 143, 279; Rubery v.Stevens, 4 Barn. Ad., 241, and note a; Wms. on Exrs., 4 Am. ed., 1489, 1490.) It was against the plaintiff's protest that the surrogate took jurisdiction of the rents collected, and, without right, distributed them. The conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover was also right. Upon that point the authorities were, as BRONSON, J., said In re Galloway (21 Wend., 33), all one way. It is not so clear that the referee was right in ordering judgment for a sum exceeding the amount received for rent; but upon this point no exception was taken, and hence the question is not up for consideration. The judgment must be affirmed.