Betsill v. Betsill

Citations

• 30 S.C. 505
• 9 S.E. 652
• 1889 S.C. LEXIS 132

Syllabus

<p>1. Arbitrators appointed to assess the value of an intestate estate and to make an equitable and fair distribution thereof, announced their conclusions orally, which beiiig objected to by one of the distributees, a reappraisement was made, with consent of all parties. A written paper was then executed, assigning different tracts to several of the distributees at a stated price per acre, and directing one tract of uncertain acreage to be surveyed and sold. Afterwards, another paper was signed, fixing the amounts to be paid for equality. Held, that there was but one award.</p> <p>2. The complaint alleged certain wishes of intestate as to plaintiff’s interest in intestate’s estate, which estate was submitted by all the distributees to arbitrators for distribution. Held, that a demurrer to the complaint did not admit this allegation, as it was insufficiently, pleaded, (1) because it was not contained in the submission ; and (2) because the law controls the distribution of an estate where the decedent fails to express his wishes in the form of a duly executed will.</p> <p>3. After plaintiff had received a tract of land at a price stated, under this award, upon which was charged a sum of money for equality of partition in favor of a brother, he signed deeds to other distributees, and allowed judgment to go against him by default for the sum so assessed, under which his brother bought this land. He afterwards filed his complaint, asking that this award, judgment, and purchase be all set aside, upon the grounds that he had recently and accidentally discovered that one of the arbitrators did not know that he was to “assign” property to the distributees, and another did not know that the tract assigned to plaintiff was to be assessed, under intestate’s wishes, without regard to the value of improvements thereon, plaintiff supposing it had been so done. Held, that a demurrer to the complaint was well sustained, for (1) the submission required the arbitrators to allot shares