Flood v. Strong

1. Estates op Deoedents — Purchase prom Heirs — Liability for Debts op Estate. Purchasers of land from the heirs of an estate, before administration has been had and closed, take the land subject to debts and expenses of administration. 2. Same — Presentation op Claims — Laches. The mere failure of a creditor of a decedent’s estate, upon which no administration has been had, to assert his claim for a period of five years after the death of the deceased, does not constitute such laches as will preclude him from enforcing the claim against land of the decedent in the possession of a • purchaser from the sole heir, where the personal property of the decedent was in the possession of the surviving member of a firm to which he belonged, 'and the interest on the claim continued to be paid until a defalcation by the survivor, and the creditor had no knowledge that the ^property was being misused by the latter.

Appeal from Shiawassee; Wisiier, J., presiding. Bill by John Flood against Walter D. O. Strong and Newton Baldwin to enjoin an administrator’s sale. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. One Isaac M. Strong and his son, Walter M. Strong, were bankers in Bancroft, Mich., under the firm name of I. M. Strong & Son. While so in business, on September 1, 1883, they executed a note for$l,000 to defendant Walter D. 0. Strong, and on December 3d, same year, another note for $505. Interest was paid upon these notes until the death of I. M. Strong, March 12, 1888. Defendant Strong is and was a resident of the State of New York. He attended his brother’s funeral at Bancroft, and has never'been in the State since. Walter continued to carry on the banking business, and to pay the interest on this note, until 1893, when he failed and absconded. Isaac, at his death, was possessed of the lot and building thereon in Bancroft, the subject of this suit, unincumbered, and some land in Charlotte which was heavily mortgaged. After Walter’s failure, defendant Strong caused letters of administration to be taken out upon the estate of Isaac, deceased, and defendant Baldwin was appointed administrator. These two notes were allowed against the estate. The administrator found no personal property except a safe, and no real estate except the two pieces above mentioned. The administrator filed his petition in the probate court for a sale of this land to pay the debts and expenses of administration, which petition was granted. Complainant thereupon filed this bill of complaint to enjoin the sale, upon the ground that defendant Strong was guilty of such laches, by the delay in asserting his claim against the estate of Isaac, as to render it inequitable as against complainant’s rights. Isaac died intestate, leaving his widow and Walter his sole heirs at law. September 9, 1889, the widow deeded to Walter her interest in the store and lot in controversy, and he deeded to her his interest in the Charlotte property. In April, 1890, Walter and his wife conveyed the Bancroft property to the complainant for a consideration of $1,000. Complainant took possession, and spent some money in improvements and repairs. The court entered a decree for complainant.