16 Ind. 160 | Ind. | 1861
Grimes, at the decease of Butcher, held two promissory notes on him, executed in 1841, and bearing “ ten per cent, interest yearly from date.” There were various credits indorsed thereon. After the death of Butcher, the administrators and Grimes, being unable to calculate the interest and determine the sum due, selected two persons, Blalce and Hamilton, to make such calculation, who by mistake, it is averred, determined that there was $2,473 due. One thousand was then paid, and the administrators gave a note for the balance. They now sue, alleging that the $1,000 overpaid the amount really due; which overplus they seek to recover back, and to enjoin the collection of the note. The complaint, averring these facts, was demurred to, and the demurrer overruled. Answer: 1. Denial. 2. That the matter was by agreement submitted to Blalce and Hamilton to arbitrate and determine the amount due, which they did, and notified the parties, who received and accepted the same as a settlement; and that defendant received the $1,000 and the note of plaintiffs in discharge of his claim against said estate. Heply in denial; trial by the Court; finding and judgment for the plaintiffs for $193, for so much overpaid
It is insisted that the demurrer should have been sustained,. because the plaintiffs could not maintain the suit in their representative capacity; that if they paid out the assets of the, estate improperly they would be personalty liable, and therefore could maintain a suit for the- recovery of such money only in their personal right. It may be true, that, if the administrators improperly paid out the assets they might be held to answer for the same out of their own means, and yet be authorized to maintain a suit for the assets so disbursed •, for the reason, that upon the recovery thereof they became, or rather continued, a part of the assets of the estate. Sheets v. Pabody, 6 Blackf. 122. As for the note, having been given in the same transaction, its payment, if it could have been enforced, would have been, so far as the evidence shows, out of the assets of the estate, and not from the means of the makers; unless the fact that they executed the same, made them individually liable for a debt supposed to be due from the estate. There is nothing shown that would make them so liable. It is argued that, by the terms of the note, interest was payable annually, and as several years had elapsed before any payment thereon, the interest should have been, but was not, compounded by the Court, or by Blalee and Hamilton, who made the calculation at the time of the settlement.
The obvious meaning and legal effect of the language used in the notes was, that interest was promised at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum. A failure to pay interest annually, even if it could have been required before the notes fell due, which we need not decide, did not authorize a compounding, unless an agreement had been made to pay interest on the interest, after the same became due. Niles v. The Board, &c., 8 Blackf. 159. Upon this point we are referred to Hays v. Miller, 12 Ind. 190. It appears to be conceded in that case, that the arbitrators cast the interest upon an- improper basis, but as they had been chosen to judge between the parties, their determination, although in that respect improper, would not be disturbed. Here, there is a paragraph of the answer
The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.