Butterfield v. Smith

Mr Chief Justice Waite, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. No proof was put in' on either side. The first defence, therefore, Avas clearty not sustained. Adams, the mortgagor, by not answering the bill, admitted the Aralidity of the note, and the executor of the mortgagee, by charging himself with the'note as part of the assets and settling his accounts on that basis, shoAved that he supposed the debt to be a valid one in the hands of the testator. *572 As to the second defence, it is claimed that the probate records attached as exhibits to the answer, showing the inventory and distribution, are conclusive evidence that the debt has been paid. Undoubtedly, final settlements of administrators and executors, when adjudicated, have the force and effect of judgments as between the parties to such settlements; but neither Adams nor these appellants were parties to this settlement, which concluded the executor and’ distributees, but no one else. Nothing is more common than for an executor or an administrator to charge himself with debts due the estate before they are collected, and thus expedite a final settlement. It would be dangerous to hold that, as between the executor or administrator and the debtor, such a settlement was conclusive evidence of the actual payment of the debt and the discharge of the debtor-. The question presented by the' answer is not whether the estate now owns the note secured by the mortgage, if it be still unpaid, but whether it has been paid. Decree affirmed.