Shannon v. Davis
Shannon v. Davis
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
A receiver should not have been appointed. There is no necessity or reason for it. It was proper to grant administration of the estate of Mrs. Robertson, and her administrator was entitled to the growing crop and other personal property for the purpose of reimbursing her legitimate charges upon it.
The will vested in her an estate for her life charged with a trust for the maintenance and education of the children with remainder to them, and on her death they were entitled to all that was left, but subject to a charge for all the debts she had created in accordance with the will. It would have been proper to have appointed a receiver, instead of an administrator, at the death of the tenant for life, and he could have completed the crop and paid the debts chargeable on the estate, but as an administrator for the tenant for life was appointed, and has partially administered the estate, and as justice to all parties in interest can be done without it, there should not be an overturning of what has been rightly done under the authority of the court.
On the death of Mrs. Robertson there accrued to the children an immediate right to all of the estate on hand, subject to its liability for debts incurred as authorized by the will. The property should not have been treated as that of the tenant for life any further than was necessary to pay the legitimate debts she incurred.
The decree appointing a receiver is reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- G. W. Shannon, Administrator v. Emma J. Davis
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Wiiiii. Construction of. Particular estate and remainder. Case in judgment. The will of B. contained the following provisions: “ I bequeath all my property to my wife during her natural life, to be kept by her for the benefit of herself and my children,” and “the proceeds of the property shall be used by her in the support, education, and raising of my children,” and “ at the death of my wife the remaining estate to be divided between all my children or their legal descendants.” Held, that under this will the wife of B. took an estate for life charged with a trust for the maintenance and education of the children of B. during her life, and on the death of the wife the children of B. take the property as then existing, subject to no diminution except for payment of debts contracted by the wife in pursuance of the will. 2. Same. Death of life tenant. Sights of administrator. Growing crops, etc. And in such case on the death of the wife her administrator may take charge of the growing crops and other personal property of the estate of B. for the purpose of paying off such debts as she had contracted in accordance with the provisions of the will, but it is illegal for him to cause to be set aside exempt property for the use of the minor children, or to have any allowance made out of the estate of B. for their support and maintenance. 3. Same. Administrator of life tenant’s estate. Seceiverfor trust estate. And in such casé where an administrator for the estate of the life tenant has been appointed and partially administered the trust estate left by B., a receiver for such estate will not then be appointed, though it would have been proper so to do in the first place.