Barbara Davis, plaintiff in error, vs. William Bagley et al., defendants in error

Supreme Court of Georgia1869-12

40 Ga. 181

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment is reversed. Mrs. Davis is not estopped from recovering the mistakenly paid funds, and Bagley must be charged with the amount as a devastavit, though he may assert available statutory defenses for good-faith actions.

Mrs. Davis's father's estate share was mistakenly paid to her children through the administrator Bagley, who incorrectly treated it as part of her deceased husband's estate. Mrs. Davis did nothing to object, but the court held she had no legal duty to instruct the administrator on proper law or correct his error. Because Bagley was a sworn fiduciary officer with a mandatory duty to distribute estates according to law, his mistake cannot be excused by Mrs. Davis's silence or inaction, and she cannot be estopped from recovering the funds.

The court determined that the payment constituted a devastavit—an unlawful disbursement by an administrator. Although the funds have already been paid out, they remain chargeable against Bagley's administration of the father's estate and must be recovered. The funds are not automatically owed to Mrs. Davis; rather, they remain estate property subject to distribution among all proper claimants. However, Bagley may assert defenses available under post-war protective legislation if he acted in good faith under the law as it then existed.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an estate beneficiary's silence and failure to object to an administrator's legal error constitutes estoppel
Whether an administrator's fiduciary duty to distribute estates lawfully is excused by a beneficiary's failure to instruct or correct the administrator
Whether a payment to non-entitled parties constitutes a devastavit chargeable to the administrator
What statutory defenses are available to administrators acting in good faith

Procedural posture

Mrs. Davis brought this action in error against Bagley and others regarding the mistaken distribution of her father's estate share to her children.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

McCay, J.

1. Thé important question in this case is, how far the acquiescence of Mrs. Davis in the payment of this money to her children, binds her. It is admitted that there was a mistake. Bagley was the administrator of Mrs. Davis’ father, and also of Mrs. Davis’ husband. The share of Mrs. Davis in her father’s estate survived to her. Davis having died befyre he reduced it into possession, it formed no part of his (Davis’) estate. The act of the administrator in paying it over to himself, as administrator of Davis, and then paying it out to Davis’ heirs, was a mistake. Mrs. Davis was entitled to all of it. As it was, her children got each $1,000. The evidence is that all the parties were mistaken in the law.

This is not the case of a contract where both parties stand upon their own judgment, and where no special duty is cast upon either. Bagley is a trustee, an officer appointed by the law to perform a specified duty, to-wit: to administer this estate according to law; and the rules prescribing his duty are the law of the land. He had a duty to perform. If he failed, however ignorant or mistaken he may be, he cannot excuse himself. He has a mere ministerial duty to perform in paying out this estate, and if he pay any portion of it to one not entitled,- he is responsible to those entitled.

Mrs. Davis had no duty in the premises. She was under no obligation to keep Bagley informed as to the law; and her failure to instruct him as to his duties is no breach of any duty on her part. There is-no pretence of any fraud or concealment by her. Indeed, it appears affirmatively from the record that Bagley acted wholly without reference to any act or saying of hers. She, it is true, stood by and said-nothing, made no objection, simply because she did not know she had any right to object. Bagley was not misled by her. That is affirmatively proven.

We do not think she is estopped. Estoppel always implies that the person estopped has, by his act, misled the other. Code, section 3700. It was not Mrs. Davis’ duty to instruct Bagley as to the law. It was Bagley’s duty to obey the law. He was the actor, sworn and bonded, authorized to take counsel and charge the estate for it; and we can see no reason for excusing him from the performance of his duty because Mrs. Davis, who" was not bound to set him right, stood by and, in her own ignorance, permitted him to go wrong.

2. The payment of this money to those not entitled to it is a devastavit. It is still in hand; the receipt is null. Bagley, as administrator of Jones, is chargeable with that much- money. It does not necessarily belong to Mrs. Jones. It has never been legally separated from the estate of Jones. It is there for distribution among those entitled to it, whoever they may be. Mrs. Jones is one of the heirs-at-law, abd if there be no good reason why it should not be paid to her, she may receive it. But the"heirs-at-law are only entitled to what remains after the debts are paid.

3. Under our Acts, passed in 1865 and 1866, and under the Constitution of 1868, very liberal and just provisions are made for the protection of administrators who, in good faith, and under the laws in force at the time, made investments, which, without their fault, have turned out badly. There is also an Act protecting administrators from liability for payments made to persons who, as the estate then stood, appeared plainly entitled to such payments, but who, as has since become apparent, were not entitled. And this is perfectlyjust. If the administrator acted in good faith it would be very hard to hold him responsible for the untoward and unexpected results of the late war. The parties injured are not remidiless ; they can follow the moneys thus paid out into the hands of those who have received it.

4. We think there ought to be a new trial in this case, in which Bagley shall be charged with the amount paid out to the children of Mrs. Davis, as a devastavit, but with the right on his part to the defenses allowed by the Acts we have referred to, keeping also in view that any other claims there may be against the estate of Jones, have their rights against the fund in hand, as well as Airs. Jones.

Judgment reversed.