ARK.] WATKINS v. PURNELL.. 837 WATKINS v. PURNELL. • 4'-3074 Qpinion. delivered Jrily 10, 1933. . A. EXECUTORS Licismi tADMINISTRATORS-41aAH4TENACE OF :MiNORS: =-EXpenditures by an administrator ,on .behalf :of minor .children .of the intestate, even for the purpose of their maintenance and education, =must. be thadet under (the .direaion : of !the coilit -fin c̀lin con-fortnity to their station in life)and 'the value of the eitate.' 2. EXECUTORS, AND ADMINISTRATORS-HXPENDITURES 'TOR MINOR-HEIR& Expenditures on behali of minor children were made by the administrator Without ,cOuit order .it his peril, and the bbrden proof WaS on 'hill') to shoW That'they Were riecessary and'preiier expenditutes. 3. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS—EXPENDITURE FOR HOME.—An admiriistrator "had no iilt o ,purChase a 'home for minor, chil-'dken tof debeased. ExEbirroks AND ADMINISTRATORSEXPENDITURE FOR Homaz-z suB--RoGATION: Where art .admihistrtor improperly,purchased a7-home for minor children a intestate without an order a the probate coUrt, the' adniinistrator, adion on hiS 'bend, wds pThperlY subrogated to the rights of the minors, and the title wis (propei1Y
- 838. -WATKINS V. PURNELL. [187 divested from them and vested in the , administrator and his sureties. 5. DEATH—APPORTIONME NT OF RECOVERY.—One-third of the Money collected by an administrator, in an action for a wrongful killing for benefit of the widow and next of kin, belonged to the widow, and the resi to the children. EXECUTOR3- AND ADMINISTRATORS—ALLOWANCE TO WIDOW A • ND CHILDREN.--Out of the personal estate of intestate exceeding -$300, the widow and minor children"were entitled, under Crawford & Moses' Dig., § 80, to receive $300. EX.ECUTORS AND ADM INISTRATORALLOWANCE FOR MAINTENANCE OF CHILDREN .—In an action by the guardian of minors on an administrator's bond, the administrator was entitled to credit for the . amount expended on the children and the amount due for the care, -custody- and labor in caring for the children. 8. EXECUTORS AND. ADMINISTRATORS—LIABILITY OF SURETIES.—Sureties on an administrator's bond . are liable for the amount which the administrator collected for deceased's death on behalf of the next of 'kin,' though such amount . did not ' belong to deceased's estate. Appeal from White Chancery Court ; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor ; modified and affirmed. Brundidge & Neelly, for appellant. Tom W. Campbell, for appellee. MEHAFFY, J. On October 30, 1920, L. D. Robinett, a farmer living near Kensett, White County, Arkansas, was struck and fatally injured by a locomotive engine on the Missouri Pacific Railroad and died from the effects of said injury a few hours later. On December 10, 1920, appellant J. F. Watkins was appointed by the probate court of White County, ad--ministrator of the estate of said L. D. Robinett, deceased, and executed and filed his administrator 's bond in the sum of $5,500, and appellants J. H. Dreener and L. E. Moore, signed the administrator's bond as sureties. On the' same day that Watkins was appointed administrator, he filed in the circuit court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, a complaint against the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, alleging the injury and death of said Robinett caused by the negligence of said railroad company.
ARK.] WATKINS V. PURNELL. 839 Robinett left surviving him his widow, Maud Rob-inett, and two sons, Ewell, fonr years old, and Chester, six months old, as his next of kin. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the administrator against the railroad company, for $2,000 in favor of the next of kin, and . $750 in favor of the estate of Robinett, and the said administrator collected said sums on December 10, 1920. No guardian was appointed for the minor children of L. D. Robinett until February 8, 1932, at which time W. F. Mitchell was duly appointed their guardian and curator, by the probate court of White County. 011 May 3, 1932, W. F. Mitchell, as guardian and curator of the minor heirs of Robinett, deceased, brought suit in the chancery court of White County against J. F. Watkins, J. H. Deener and L. E. Moore upon the administrator's bond, for a recovery on behalf of said minor children, of $2,000, which appellant Watkins, as administrator, had collected from the railroad company in favor of• the next of kin of the said L. D. Robinett. After the suit was brought, but before it was tried in chancery court, Mitchell died, and Frank L. Purnell, appellee, was by the probate court of White . County, appointed guardian arid curator of the minor children in place of Mitchell, and Frahk L. Purnell, as guardian, was substituted for Mitchell as iparty plaintiff. J. F. Watkins, the administrator, filed separate answer . denying the material allegations of the complaint and alleging that all the money received by him as administrator of said estate was - duly paid over and accounted for in his settlement with the' White Probate Court ; that all of said money was expended for the support, education and maintenance of said minors ; that $1,100 was used for the purchase of a home, consisting of 10 acres of land, which was conveyed to the minors by deed; that the purchase of ' said home was made - by the authority of the White Probate Court, ' and that all of the money was used for the benefit of said minor children.
840, WATEIN,S V. PURNELL. _[187 The bondrexocuted by Watkins, and: his-sureties was an administrator's bond. in the usual and proper form, J. H. Deener and, L. :E. M-0.01:,e,, sureties on: the ad, pistrator's bond, file.cl separate answer, denying the material allegations in the complaint,, and denying:that they were liable for . the sum of $2,000,_ Or any other, sum. Tliey alleged that, they. cOuld Only be responsible for $750, the amount paid to the adMinistrator, and that this amount was duly paid out under the orders , of the probate cou•t. The following is the, settlement filed in the probate court by the administrator "State of Arkansas, County of White. "In} The- White Probate . Court. . Term, 1923. "On this 28th day of A P . ril, 1923', coines J. F. Wat-kins on the' adniinistratorship- of the estate of L. D. Robinett and files hiS account current fbr firSt and final settlement of ! hiS: accomit as:aforesaid and . charges himself' with the following articles : "Date On What Aceeunt ' Amonnt 1243-1920 To ck. froin, Pac,' Ry: 'Co $2,750.00 . Inventory: of Personal:Propert • y 453.00 $3,203:00 12454920 • 1337; livestock and:implements- covered by inventory sold to A. R Mills to: apply on account 45,3.00
12;154920 Ck, to Mrs: Robinett for. living e?cpenses 75.00 12,23i-1920 Ck. to Mrs. Rohinett for , living epenses 5000, _1:134921 Ok. G-.. O. Yinglingi Xing: claim, - and. copy of letters-L35 14.84921 Ok. to 'Mrs. .Robinett for house: rent for 1921 100100 1-184921 Ck. A. CTawford as. appraiser 1.50. 171, 49n Ck. A. P., MiJ1s for claim 125.56 1-, 49'21 U. Mrs. Ro-bi.net.t board for children - 40:00
ARR.] WATRINS V. PTAINELL. .841 -1-27-1921 A. P.. Mills halanee stOre TcoiIt 312.45 34921 Gk. '0. V, Tapscott • 3600 2- 94921 Ck. Mrs. --je'ssie West elaim . f-Oit" 94.50 147- 21
SthWart'& SOri mbninnen't 441-1921 Ok. Mrs. Robinett 1iin •-e)tp. for 50:00 4-25=1921 Ok:: Mrs. Rdbinett living . exp. for child 50.00 • 4-25-1921' Ok..J. A. " Speneer claim 12.85 5-164921 Ok: Mrs: RObinett for -Children '40.00 5-30-1921 ; 0k. RObt. SteWart claim. 34:90 6-254921 •. Ok. Mrs. Robinett for -Children 30!00 8- 6-1921 Ck. krs. Robitiett for 'Children 140:00 • 8-18-1921. Ok. Mrs. RObinett for coW :bonght 35.00 • 9- 2-1921. H. M Williams payMent , On land 50000 9- 64,921' . II: M. Williams balande onland _598.50 9-14-1921 Mrs. Robinett for mule and \vagon 6500 10-20-1921 Mrs. Robinett ,for supplies for -children •1500 12-• 349211 Mrs. Robinett for supplies for Children, 20.00 1-114922 Mrs. Robinett for 'supplies for children 2500 2-11-1922 Mrs. Robinett -for supplies fpr children 25.00 3-25-1922 Nrs. • Robinett • for, supplies for children, •2500 4-284922, .Mrs. Robinett for supplies ,for children , 25.00, 5-30-1922 Mrs: Robinett • -for supplies for • children 25.00 1-28-1923 Mrs. Robinett for supplies for children, '25.00 9- 7-1923 Taxes paid .81 4-284923 •J. F.,Watkins 5% commission and exp. to Little Rock:two trips, and other expenses 181.52 • . The eVidence showed that : Watkins as,adminiSfrator, had received the $2,750 as alleged, and. that he_had _paid it out as shown by his settlement with the probate court.
842 WATKINS V. PURNELL. [187 Mrs. Maud Stewart, the widow of L. D. Robinett, testified that he was killed by the Missouri Pacific, left the two children above-named, one four . years old and the other 4 months old ; that said children at the time of the trial were 16 and _12 years of age ; that she married again a short time after her husband was killed ; the children lived with her; she drew some money , from the administrator for the support of the children, but did not know how much ; that she had no place to live, and the administrator paid rent on a house for her and the children for about a year after the death of her husband ; that Mr. Watkins then bought a place for them, and they live on it ; that he paid $1,100 for the place. J. F. Watkins testified that the settlement introduced showed the amounts he had paid out, for which he held the original checks ; that Mrs. Robinett and Mr. Stewart came to him and told him about the place they wanted to buy. That they were having to pay rent all the time. That the place was well worth the money, and that Judge White, the judge of the probate court, told him it was the best thing to do to purchase the place. There was no order of the probate court, but he purchased on the verbal order of Judge White. The bond of the. administrator was introduced by agreement. It° was also agreed that if Judge White were present he would testify to substantially the same facts testified to by Watkins with reference to the purchase of the home. It was also agreed that Mrs. Stewart, mother of the children, had had the care and custody of the children since the death of their father, and that there was no guardian appointed until February 8, 1932. After hearing the testimony the chancellor entered a decree against the appellants for $1,333.33 with interest at 6 per cent. per annum from February 8, 1932, the date of the appointment of the guardian, the principal and interest amounting to $1,379.95. The principles of law are well settled. We have had considerable difficulty, however, in reaching a conclusion as to what decree should have been rendered under the facts in this case.
ARK.] , WATKINS V. PURNELL. - 843 -‘ 'The law is 'thoroughly well settled that the administrator, as such, bas nothing to do with the support and, education of the minor children of his intestate, and, if nothing more appeared in this case than 'that the administrator had done so, then he would have nn *right to make this Charge against the estate 6f his intestate" Alcorn v. Alcorn, 183 Ark. 342, 35 S. W: (2d) 1627 , : : . It was Also said in the above case in substance that the administrator should, from time to time, have -received orders from the probate court as to wbat_ expenditures were proper. If he 'had done' this, he would have been protected: By failing to obtain this authority, he _ made expenditures for the purposes Stated at his peril, and subject tO the 'right of the court to revieW them_ when_ he made report thereof. If Was also Said in substance that neither , an adthinistrator nor a guardian may .ex: pend the Minor 's estate in the manner that it was shown to have been expended tf the evidence. The' expendi: tures, even for the mit-Pose of maintenance:and . ethic-a:" tion, must be made under the direction of the -court, and made in conformity to his station -in life, and the valte of his estate. Numerous authorities are cited and reviewed in the Alcorn_ case, supra, and we do not deem it necessary to discuss them here. Whatever expenditures for the minor children were made by the administrator were made at his peril, and the burden of proof would be upon him to show that they were necessary and proper expenditures, taking into consideration their station in life, and the' value of their estate. - The. administrator had no right to purchase the home, and the court correctly so held. The decree of the lower court subrogating . the administrator to the rights of Ewell-Robinett and Chester Robinett i nnd .divesting the title and interest of said minors _from thern, and vesting same in defendants, is cerreCt . , 1 Of the $2,000 collected for the benefit of the next of kin, one-third would belong to the widow, and two-thirds, or $1,333.33, wonld belong. to the children. The $750 for the benefit of the estate , was less than the amount paid for discharging the debts ' of the esfate. There :was, however, $453 of personal property left, and the widow and
minor, children would be, entitled to $300 of thisLamount making, a total of $11,533133. Crawford & Moses:' Digest,. . The undisputed proof, shows that, there- was, expended f o r the widow ancP. children; 060. . This: wa evidently thee amount eNpended on; the, children, and the amount due the, widow for care, custody; andllabpr in caring for the childrem Thisf $5,60: deducted from $1,5,3.133 , leaves a balance of $97333;1which . the guardian is, entitled to recover: for the children-. The decree of the-•chancery court is therefore- moth-fied a,nd- affirme4or19,73. , wi th , interest at 6, pex cent. per. annum, from, February 8; 1932.. The sureties. on- the, bond: contend that they are: not liable be.cause the $2;000 did not. belong to the , estate. They; however; signed- Watkins' bond as administrator; andrhe.sued-forand . collected the money as administrator. They- are therefore, liable for the amount of t money due from the, administrator to the nainors. The judgment-. will ) be modified, and affirmed for, $KIM Itr isrso, ordered.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.