Citation Numbers: 39 Tenn. 647
Judges: Oaeuthers
Filed Date: 4/15/1859
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/30/2022
delivered the opinion of the Oourt.
Henry E. Steele died intéstate in Eayette county in 1852. Appleberry was appointed his administrator, who died in 1854, before the estate was fully settled up, when Wm. Campbell was appointed administrator de bonis non. He also died, and was succeeded by Stanly Campbell, of whom the plaintiffs in error were sureties in
We have heretofore held, when the case was before us upon the suit of Stanly, as successor of Campbell in the administration, that they were not liable to him, upon the ground that neither a prior administrator nor his sureties are liable to a succeeding administrator de bonis non, for things administered. But this is entirely a different question.
It is not easy to see why it was necessary to call in the aid of a Court to make the sale, when all the distribu-tees were of age, and the title was complete in them, and the debts of the estate all paid. There wTere no infants, and a proceeding in Court was not necessary to give the purchaser a good title.
But still that course was adopted, and we have to consider its effect as to the responsibility of the sureties of Campbell for his administration.
In this case, the decree for sale was made by the County Court, empowering Campbell, the administrator, to make the sale, and pay out the proceeds to those entitled, who are the plaintiffs in this action. Ho bond was ever given by him, and only a part of the proceeds paid out, and the balance lost by his insolvency, as before stated. Upon whom shall the loss fall, is the question now presented.
The bond of his sureties as administrator, only binds them for the faithful performance of his duties in that capacity, not for anything that might be done by him under an appointment by the Court for a different purpose. The sale of the slaves of the estate was not embraced in his functions as administrator, even if sold for distribution. It was not contemplated by his sureties, that any fund would come into his hands of that kind. They knew the law forbid him to convert them into money. If then, the Court by a distinct appointment clothed
The present plaintiffs were parties with him in the Court, and should have attended to their interests by demanding the proper bond. They united in the petition for the sale, and upon their prayer he was appointed. They were the real parties to the proceeding, and he, perhaps, entirely an unnecessary party, as there were no debts to pay. The slave was taken out of his hands as administrator, upon that petition, by the Court, and returned to him in his new character of commissioner, to sell. The liability of the defendants then terminated, because he was not acting as administrator.
We think that his Honor erred in holding the plaintiffs in error liable on the administration bond, and reverse the judgment.