Kennon ex rel. Harper v. Branson, 16 N.C. 64, 1 Dev. Eq. 64 (1827)

June 1827 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

16 N.C. 64, 1 Dev. Eq. 64

Richard Kennon & wife & others, next of kin to Abraham Harper,^* v. Henry Branson and Tho’s. Ragland, adm’rs of said Harper.

From Chath.

The jurisdiction of the County Courts as Courts of Equity, being confined to suits for distribution, they have no power to make any order in such suits, which is not necessary to a correct decision.

Therefore, in a petition for distribution, where the administrator and the intestate had been copartners, and upon a reference of the partnership and administration accounts, a balance was report.d against the estate — it was held, that this only formed a defence against the suit — and that a decree against the next of kin for such balance was erroneous.

Whether a Court of general Equity jurisdiction can deciee the Plaintiff to pay a balance against him — Quere ?

This was a petition in Equity filed in the County Court, at May term, 1816, in the common form, praying that the Defendants, administrators of Mrdham Harper, might render an account of their administrationship, and make distribution. Owing to the destruction of the Clerk’s office by fire, the transcript was very defective, and nothing appeared of the cause, except the original petition, the subpoena and the return thereon, until the Fall term of the Superior Court in 1824, when a report made before that time was set aside, and the cause referred to the Clerk “ to take all the accounts of the Defendants, as administrators of Mraham Harper, and also of the said Harper with either of the Defendants,” with leave to examine the parties upon interrogatories ; accompanied by an order that all the books and papers relating to the accounts, should be filed with the Clerk. At Spring term, 1825, the Clerk made a report, wherein he stated, that under the order of reference, he had first proceeded to take the accounts of A. Harper & Company, which was composed of the intestate, the Defendant Bran-son and one Samuel Allen. Secondly, the accounts of a copartnership composed of the intestate and the Defendant Branson. Thirdly, the private accounts between the intestate and Branson ; and fourthly, the administration account of the Defendants. The general result of all which was, a balance of *86235,62, due the Defendant Branson.

Many exceptions to this account were filed, which are not noticed, as the case was not decided upon them.— His honor Judge Norwood, on his last circuit, decreed, “ that the Defendant Henry Branson recover of the petitioners $6235,62, of which sum it is adjudged and decreed, &c.” specifying the amount tobe paid by each petitioner. From which decree, the latter appealed.

The Attorney-General and Gaston for the Appellants,

were stopped by the Court, and upon an intimation from the Bench, of a decided opinion against the Defendants, Nash, Badger and W. H. Haywood, for them, declined arguing the cause.

* The Reporters have entertained doubts whether suits of this kind in their clasification, belong most properly to the Law or Equity cases — the forum being strictly legal, but the subject matter and the form of proceeding purely equitable.

Henderson, Judge.

— Had the Plaintiffs resorted to a Court of Equity to recover their distributive shares, I doubt very much whether a decree could be made against them, or even against the property of the intestate in their hands, for any balance which might be due to the Defendant, upon taking an account of transactions between him and the intestate, they having stood in a relation to each other which subjected them toan account. But be that as it may, Í think that the Courts of Law, in cases of petitions for filial portions and distributive glares, being in this respect. Courts of limited jurisdiction, have no such power. It is true, that if an account between the parties is necessary to sustain either the charge, or the defence, quoad hoc, the Court has jurisdiction, but no further. In the present case, if an account of the different partnerships in which the intestate was concerned, was necessary, either to support the case of the petitioners, or the defence of the Defendant — so far the Court had jurisdiction to take it; as it would be absurd to confer on the Court the power of deciding, and yet withhold from it the power of doing so correctly.

The account t?.ken is therefore evidence, so far as it goes to discharge the Defendants, but for no other purpose; as to any other, it not being necessary to a correct decision of the suit, the Legislature has not conferred the power of taking it. The decree pronounced in favor of the Defendants against the Complainants, must therefore be reversed, and the petition dismissed — the Defendants paying the co~í of this Court, and the Petitioners all other costs.

Per Curiam.

— Decree reversed, and the [petition-dismissed.