Opinion
10-19-1816
Sampson v. Payne's Executor and Legatees
Nicholas for the Appellant. Williams for the Appellee.
The Appellant filed his Bill in the late High Court of Chancery against William Harrison, acting Executor and legatee of Josias Payne deceased, William Payne, Robert Payne, and Archibald Bryce, executor of William Mitchell deceased, who were also legatees of the same Josias Payne, for the purpose of getting satisfaction of his judgment at law, mentioned ante, (in the case last reported,) out of the assets in the hands of the said William Harrison, of which he prayed an Account to be rendered, or by contribution of the legatees; from whom an account of the property received by each was also required.
The defendant William Harrison, by his answer, admitted, in substance, that the slaves specifically bequeathed by the Testator had been delivered to the legatees by their mutual consent; and that he received from Robert Payne those bequeathed to Anna Harrison his wife; but contended that, as all the legatees were equally bound in the Deed from the Testator to Sampson, they ought to pay their just proportions of the debt, according to what they enjoyed of the estate.
Archibald Bryce, by his answer insisted that the whole debt ought, according to principles of equity, to be paid by William Harrison himself; because the Covenant, for breach of which the judgment was obtained, was entered into by the Testator altogether for the benefit of the said Harrison, and without any valuable consideration received by the former.
Robert Payne having departed this life, his Executor Robert Payne answered the Bill, and denied that his Testator had received any slaves, or other property, as legatee or distributee of the estate of Josias Payne deceased; --alleging that all the property held by the said Robert Payne, which once belonged to the said Josias Payne, was given by the latter to the former by a Deed of Gift, and held as the property of the donee some considerable time before the decease of the donor.
Chancellor Wythe, on the 10th of March 1803, pronounced his opinion; observing, " that the questions controverted among the defendants are whether William Harrison be personally chargeable in equity with the damages and costs, recovered by the plaintiff against that defendant, as Executor of Josias Payne; and if he be not so chargeable, what proportions thereof ought the other defendants, either all of them, or all except Robert Payne, (who claimeth indemnity), to contribute? --Of these questions the Chancellor considered the former 'idle,' because a decree against William Harrison would not place the plaintiff in a situation better than that which he before occupied, and yet occupieth, being at liberty to sue forth an alias fieri facias in execution of the District Court's judgment, and proceed to convict the Executor for a devastavit; and the other is impertinent and premature, and cannot be regularly or definitely decided in a cause between this plaintiff and these defendants; for to the plaintiff his money, paid by either party, is equally satisfactory; --the creditors remedy against legatees ought not to be prosecuted before that against the Executor hath failed, or is suggested, through his insolvency, to have failed; --of which neither is in this case; and two of the legatees, Josias Payne the younger, and John Payne are not parties, and another of them, William Payne, hath not answered the Bill." The Bill was therefore dismissed with costs, but without prejudice to any suit, which the plaintiff might thereafter institute.
From which Decree the plaintiff appealed.
March 26th, 1816, the case was submitted by Nicholas for the Appellant.
Williams for the Appellee.
OPINION
Judge Brooke pronounced the Court's opinion.
" The Court, (not adopting the reasons of the Chancellor, nor deciding the question between the Appellees, as to contribution,) approves of the said Decree, except so much thereof as dismisses the Bill as to the Appellee, William Harrison; as to whom, though an action at law suggesting a devastavit might have been prosecuted against him, yet, as he was brought into the Court of Chancery for the purpose of relieving him from the payment of the whole amount of the judgment at law, by a contribution of the other defendants, and for his benefit, and as it appears, by the Exhibits and proofs in the Record, that he has wasted the estate of his testator by delivering it over to the Legatees, the Court is of opinion that a decree ought to have been rendered against him, for the amount of the judgment at law, after deducting the payment made to the Sheriff; and that, on these grounds, the said decree, so far as it dismisses the Bill as to the said William Harrison, is erroneous. Therefore it is decreed and ordered, that so much of the said Decree, as is above mentioned to be erroneous, be reversed and annulled, and that the residue thereof be affirmed: and the cause is remanded to the Superior court of Chancery, to be proceeded in according to the foregoing principles."