Skip to content

Greene v. Grimshaw

Robert R. Greene, administrator de bonis non of Henry J. Ross v. William A. Grimshaw

Greene v. Grimshaw, 11 Ill. 389 (1849)

Court: Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: December 15, 1849
Judges: Treat
Citations: 11 Ill. 389

Cited by 5

Headnotes

Appeal from Pike. When a person renders services for the benefit of the estate of a decedent, at the instance of the executrix thereof, his claim for compensation is not a personal demand against the executrix j but, on the death of the executrix, may be enforced against the estate, for the benefit of which the services were rendered. The acts of an executrix, rightfully done in her official character, are binding on the estate which she represents.

Summary

This was a suit commenced by the appellee before the Court of Probate of Pike county, against the appellant, to recover twenty-five dollars, claimed as a fee, for prosecuting a suit, in the name of Hopestill Ross, as executrix of Henry J. Ross, deceased, against certain parties by the name of Tucker and Sealey. A judgment was recovered on that suit, against Tucker and Sealey, and the money collected upon it was paid to the appellant as the administrator de bonis non (the executrix having died) of the estate of the said H. J. Ross. Before the Probate Court, the appellee recovered a judgment for the value of his services, from which an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of the county; in which Court a trial was had, before Minshall, Judge, and a jury, resulting in a verdict for the appellee for the same sum of twenty-five dollars; upon which a judgment was entered, directed to be levied of the goods and chattels, &c., in the hands of the appellant to be administered, and for costs. Prom this judgment of the Circuit Court, an appeal is taken to this Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Treat

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion by Treat, C. J.: It satisfactorily appeared in evidence, that the services of the appellee were rendered for the benefit of the estate of Henry J. Ross. He was retained by the executrix of the estate, to prosecute a suit on a note made payable to her, as executrix. The suit was brought and a judgment obtained in her favor, as executrix. After her death, the judgment was collected, and the money paid over to the appellant, as the administrator de bonis non of Henry J. Ross. He treated the proceeds of the recovery as assets of the estate. It is clear, therefore, that the note was, in fact, the property of the estate, and did not belong to Mrs. Ross, in her individual right. The services were performed for the estate, and not for Mrs. Ross personally. The estate received the benefit of the services, and ought to make the proper compensation. The appellee was employed on behalf of the estate, and had the right to look to the estate for payment. The fact that he was retained by the executrix, makes no difference. Her acts, rightfully done in her official character, are binding on the estate, and any liability arising therefrom can be enforced against the appellant. As the repreresentative of the estate, he is bound by the lawful acts of the executrix, in respect to the estate.

The judgment is not erroneous. It does not, as in the case of Peck vs. Stevens, 5 Gilman, 127 , and the cases there cited, award execution against the effects of the estate. Nor is the appellant personally responsible for its payment. It only liquidates and establishes a demand against the estate, which he is required to pay in the due course of administration.

The judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Johnson v. Leman7 L.R.A. 656 (Ill. 1890)
Darling v. McDonald101 Ill. 370 (1882)
Corporation of Fine Arts Building v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.142 N.E. 493 (Ill. 1924)
Barker v. Kunkel10 Ill. App. 407 (1882)
Ellsworth v. Struckmeyer232 P. 56 (Ariz. 1925)

Most recent

Ellsworth v. Struckmeyer232 P. 56 (Ariz. 1925)
Corporation of Fine Arts Building v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.142 N.E. 493 (Ill. 1924)
Johnson v. Leman7 L.R.A. 656 (Ill. 1890)
Barker v. Kunkel10 Ill. App. 407 (1882)
Darling v. McDonald101 Ill. 370 (1882)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.