Hamilton v. Fowler
Hamilton v. Fowler
Opinion of the Court
This proceeding was instituted in the county court of Arapahoe county to set aside an allowance against the estate of Robert J. Hamilton, deceased, of which Hannah Hamilton was administratrix, of $6,190.95 in favor of Jessie T. Hamilton, one of the heirs, by W. F. Fowler, a creditor of the estate, whose claim had been duly allowed. The order in the premises being unsatisfactory to Fowler, he appealed the case to the district court, where the allowance, in favor of Jessie T. Hamilton, was ordered to be set aside. Upon the return of the record to the county court, judgment was entered in conformity with the order of the district court. Jessie T. Hamilton and the administratrix have brought the case here by appeal.
The following is the history of Jessie T. Hamilton’s claim: The administratrix, pursuant to an order of the county court, negotiated a loan of $15,000 from Brown Brothers, of Den
We think the judgment should be affirmed. If Brown Brothers acquired a perfect title through their foreclosure,— and there is no evidence that they did not, — the quitclaim deed from the heirs was of no value or importance; there was no consideration for the transfer of the note; and Jessie T. Hamilton, one of the heirs, cannot be allowed, upon pretense of a claim so obtained, to absorb the assets of the estate to the injury of creditors. But if the title acquired through the foreclosure was not perfect, whatever had not passed to Brown Brothers was still subject to the payment of the debts of the estate, of which the balance due on the note was one; and until those debts should be paid, the rights of the heirs in the title, whatever such rights may have amounted to, were in abeyance. Debts had been allowed against the estate which were unpaid, and for the purpose of their payment, a sale of the remaining title, if there was any, could have been compelled. But instead of proceeding in the county court for an order of sale, Brown Brothers took a quitclaim deed from the heirs, and turned the note over to Jessie T. Hamilton. As, on the supposition there was a title which would pass by the quitclaim deed, that title was property to which the estate was primarily entitled for the purpose of discharging its debts; and nothing was conveyed to which the heirs had any present right. The consideration of the transfer of the unpaid balance, was property which the estate and its creditors had the right to cause to be subjected to the payment
Some other questions were originally involved in the litigation, but they seem to have been abandoned.
Let the judgment be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.