Brenham v. Story

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1870 No. No. 1,964Published

Before: Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A legislative act authorizing an administrator to sell a decedent's real estate for the purpose of speculation or to promote the interests of the heirs, rather than to satisfy debts or administration expenses, is an unconstitutional attempt to divest heirs of their vested property rights.

Issues

Whether the Legislature may constitutionally authorize an administrator to sell a decedent's real estate for the benefit of the heirs rather than for the satisfaction of debts or administration expenses.
Whether a sale of real estate by an administrator under such a legislative act is valid when the property has already vested in the heirs.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To allow the administrator to sell, to promote the interests of those entitled to the estate, would be to pass beyond the proper functions of an administrator, and constitute him the forced agent of the living for the management of their estates.”

Synopsis

Act Adthobizinq an Administbatob to Sell Beal Pboperty.—An Act of the Legislature authorizing an administrator to sell real property belonging to the estate of his decedent, except in satisfaction of the lien of creditors, for the support of the family, or to pay the expenses of administration, is unconstitutional.

Estates of Deceased Persons__Heir.—Upon the death of the ancestor, the heir becomes vested at once with the full property, and his estate is indefeasible, except in satisfaction of the liens above mentioned and the temporary right of possession of the administrator, and the Legislature has no more right to order a sale of his vested interest in his inheritance than it has to direct the sale of the property of any other person acquired in any other way.

Idem.—Administbatob—Duty of.—It is no part of the duty or authority of the administrator to manage the estate for the benefit of the estate or of the heirs; so far as they are concerned, it is his duty, simply, to preserve the estate until distribution.

Temple, J., delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an action to recover real estate. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. This appeal is taken from the judgment and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Both parties claim under Charles White, who purchased the property in 1850, then being the husband of the present Mrs. Allen, wife of Charles E. Allen. White died intestate in 1853, and Allen was appointed administrator of his estate in 1854 and, so far as appears, is still acting in that capacity.

White filed his petition before the Board of Commissioners of the United States, to ascertain and settle private land claims in California, in 1853, asking a confirmation of the land to himself. After his death, the proceedings were continued in the name of his heirs—the widow and minor children—and the patent was afterwards issued to Ellen E. White el al., widow, and heirs of Charles White, deceased.

The plaintiff put in evidence an Act of the Legislature, approved April 6, 1860, the first section of which, as amended April 15, 1861, enacts that “the administrator of Charles White, deceased, now or hereafter to be appointed, is hereby [184]authorized to sell at public or private sale, at his discretion, and without first having obtained an order of the Probate Court therefor, the whole or any portion of the real estate, or any right, title or interest therein claimed, held or owned by the said Charles "White at the time of his death, as in the judgment of the said administrator will best promote the interest of those entitled to the estate.”

The second section requires a report of the sale or sales to the Probate Court of Santa Clara County, and authorizes the Probate Judge, either in term or in vacation, in open Court or in chambers, to examine the same and confirm or set aside said sale or sales, as he may deem just and proper and for the interest of said estate.”

The third section provides for a conveyance, and that “the title so conveyed shall be as valid as if made under an order of the Probate Court in due course of law.”

Under this Act, Allen, the administrator, conveyed to Samuel J. Hensley, March 18, 1862. The deed purports to have been executed in pursuance of the Act; but at the time it was executed, the sale does not appear to have been reported to or approved by the Probate Judge. On the 8th of August, A. D. 1862, Allen reported to the Probate Court that he had sold the land to Hensley for fifteen hundred dollars; that the said sum was the fair value of the land; that it was for the best interest of the estate that the land be sold, and also, that there was no money on hand belonging to the estate, and the sale was necessary to realize means toward defraying urgent expenses of the estate.

Brenham v. Story

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief