Hook v. Payne

Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. . 1. We are of opinion that all that part of the decree which attempts to settle the rights of the parties, who were neither plaintifls nor defendants in the original suit, must be reversed. We do not propose, in this ease, to lay down any precise rule on the subject of adjusting administrators’ accounts in the Federal courts, or how far certain persons, not made parties in the original suit, or incapable of being made parties by reason of their citizenship, may or may not come in before .the master, on a general accounting, anti protect their rights; nor do we intend to go into that question. In the case before us persons representing a considerable interest in value have not appeared at all. As to them we hold it to be clear that they cannot be bound by the decree rendered in this ease, and they have an undoubted right to bring such a suit or institute such other proceeding as the law authorizes for the assertion of their rights, notwithstanding this decree. *256 It follows from this also, that as they are not bound by it, so Hook, the administrator, cannot be bound by a decree which does not bind them as to any rights to be controverted between them and him. It is also equally clear that if Hook had paid money to any other parties who did appear before the master, and had made a purchase of the interest of these parties in the estate, that purchase could not be set aside and held for nought without such adversary proceedings between them and Hook as would give him a fair hearing on that subject. They should have filed such a bill as the present plaintiffs did, and the question of the fraud should have been heard and decided by the court. It by no means follows that because the court, on full hearing, set aside his purchase of Ann Payne, that the master could without pleading or trial assume that all other purchases were equally fraudulent. Another reason for this may be found in the nature of the original bills. Although there are three of them there is no attempt to make the other distributees parties, nor do they make each other parties to their- separate bills.' They ,are each framed on the basis of setting aside the release executed by them', in which no other distributee had any interest, and each claims for herself the one-eighth to which she is entitled, without any prayer for general accounting or general distribution. The consolidation fhen of these cases does not change this feature of the relief sought, and the ground of that relief, namely, the fraud in obtaining the release. These bills are obviously not framed on -any theory of a final settlement of the estate and distribution among all entitled. They are merely brought to obtain for each plaintiff the special relief from the fraudulent release and the specific sum of money due to each from Hook, and on this theory it is that counsel brought three separate suits instead of one. For these reasons we are of opinion that the only relief to be administered in this case is that in favor of the three complainants. 2. It is strongly urged upon us that the account stated against the administrator is too hard to be justified, in refer *257 ence to the interests, both as regards the rates charged and the annual rests. The laws of Missouri allow a conventional rate of interest not exceeding ten per cent. The master stated the account on that basis, but the court below, on mature consideration, reduced the rate to eight per cent., and we are not disposed to disturb that decision. The annual rest is one which can hardly be sustained in a case of honest administration unless it be shown that the amount so ascertained was actually received. But there are circumstances in thii case which seem to justify the decree of the court so far a,n to disincline us to interfere with it on that point. The administrator is shown to have mixed the funds with his own, ■and to have used them for- puposes of speculation for his own profit. The assets for which he was held accountable were almost exclusively notes due the intestate, bearing ten per cent, interest and collected by the administrator. In his settlement with the County Court he rendered no account of the interest received on these notes, uor any interest account for the use of the money after it came-to his hapds. Nor of the profits made by him by its use in his own business transactions. He is shown to have made private arrangements to settle separately with the distributees or to buy out their interests, and these have been shown to be accompanied with fraud and without any fair statement of the condition of the 'estate, and he kept no separate account of the trust funds in his hands. Under such circumstances we are of opinion that he should be held to account for all that he might have made by the use of the money, and as the master and the Circuit judges have held that he might have invested and reinvested annually, at eight per cent., we will not disturb their finding. The decree in favor of Ann Payne, and Susan Curtis, and Mary Gwiun, is aeeirmed, and the decrees in favor of the other- parties are reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to dismiss the case as to-them without prejudice. And that each party pay their own costs of appeal. .