Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Butterfield v. Smith

Butterfield v. Smith, 101 U.S. 570 (1880)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1880-02-18
Topic
general

Mr Chief Justice Waite, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. No proof was put in' on either side. The first defence, therefore, Avas clearty not sustained. Adams, the mortgagor, by not answering the bill, admitted the Aralidity of the note, and the executor of the mortgagee, by charging himself with the'note as part of the assets and settling his accounts on that basis, shoAved that he supposed the debt to be a valid one in the hands of the testator. *572 As to the second defence, it is claimed that the probate records attached as exhibits to the answer, showing the inventory and distribution, are conclusive evidence that the debt has been paid. Undoubtedly, final settlements of administrators and executors, when adjudicated, have the force and effect of judgments as between the parties to such settlements; but neither Adams nor these appellants were parties to this settlement, which concluded the executor and’ distributees, but no one else.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Butterfield v. Smith. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Admissions by Failure to Answer A mortgagor who fails to answer a bill admits the validity of the note secured by the mortgage, and the mortgagee's executor's act of charging himself with the note as part of the estate's assets and settling his accounts on that basis shows that he regarded the debt as valid in the hands of the testator.
  2. Estate, Gift & Trust Law — Final Settlements — Conclusiveness Against Non-Parties Final settlements of administrators and executors, when adjudicated, have the force and effect of judgments as between the parties to such settlements, but bind only those parties; a mortgagor and assignees who were not parties to the settlement are not bound by it.
  3. Estate, Gift & Trust Law — Executor's Settlement — Payment of Debt An executor's or administrator's settlement charging himself with a debt due the estate before it is collected does not, as between the executor or administrator and the debtor, conclusively establish that the debt was actually paid and the debtor discharged; the question raised by an answer asserting such a settlement is not whether the estate still owns the unpaid note but whether it has been paid.
Mr Chief Justice Waite,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

No proof was put in' on either side. The first defence, therefore, Avas clearty not sustained. Adams, the mortgagor, by not answering the bill, admitted the Aralidity of the note, and the executor of the mortgagee, by charging himself with the'note as part of the assets and settling his accounts on that basis, shoAved that he supposed the debt to be a valid one in the hands of the testator.

*572 As to the second defence, it is claimed that the probate records attached as exhibits to the answer, showing the inventory and distribution, are conclusive evidence that the debt has been paid. Undoubtedly, final settlements of administrators and executors, when adjudicated, have the force and effect of judgments as between the parties to such settlements; but neither Adams nor these appellants were parties to this settlement, which concluded the executor and’ distributees, but no one else. Nothing is more common than for an executor or an administrator to charge himself with debts due the estate before they are collected, and thus expedite a final settlement. It would be dangerous to hold that, as between the executor or administrator and the debtor, such a settlement was conclusive evidence of the actual payment of the debt and the discharge of the debtor-. The question presented by the' answer is not whether the estate now owns the note secured by the mortgage, if it be still unpaid, but whether it has been paid.

Decree affirmed.