Harman v. McMullin

Citations

• 85 Va. 187
• 7 S.E. 349
• 1888 Va. LEXIS 26

Syllabus

<p>1. Receivers&emdash; Title to fund&emdash; Case for appointing&emdash;Adm’rd. b. n.&emdash;Appointment of receiver does not affect title to fund which is still regarded as in custodia legis. When administrator has been removed and estate committed to sheriff as administrator d. b. n., and unadministered assets are insufficient to pay debts, and to pay same that fund must be drawn upon to some unknown extent;</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>It is proper not to pay that fund at once to distributees, but to appoint receiver to hold same for protection of sureties, creditors and distributees, especially as administrator d. b. n. cannot sue his predecessor for assets wasted or converted. Wernick v. Me Mur do, 5 Rand. 51; Hinton v. Bland, 77 Va. 595; \\ 2648, Code 1887.</p> <p>2. Personal Representatives&emdash;Sureties&emdash;Liability.&emdash;Sureties are liable for devastavit of administrator, when he receives other things than money in discharge of debts due decedent and fails to account for the same as if he had received the money.</p> <p>3. Idem&emdash;Barred debts&emdash;Debts collected or assumed.&emdash;When evidence shows that administrator collected, or assumed to pay. debts due decedent, he and his sureties are liable, though the debts may have been barred by statute of limitations when he qualified. .</p> <p>4. Bill of Review&emdash;After-discovered evidence.&emdash;When bill of review, unsupported by affidavit, is asked to be filed on ground that since the decree defendants (sureties for defaulting administrator) had discovered (as they could not have done before) that certain property was bound for a debt, for his failure to collect which they were decreed against, and leave to file same was refused. On appeal&emdash;</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>No error, because evidence immaterial and bill unsupported. Hatcher v. Hatcher, 77 Va. 600.</p>