George K. Schmidt, as surviving executor of the last will and testament of Kaspar G. Schmidt, deceased, filed his final account as such executor in the county court of *Page 295
Cook county. After a hearing thereon an order was entered, from which an appeal was taken to the circuit court of Cook county, where, after a hearing, a decree was entered, and an appeal was taken to the Appellate Court for the First District by Schmidt, as such executor, from portions of such decree. Upon hearing in the Appellate Court, as appears from the opinion filed in the cause and reported in Wahl v. Schmidt,
Kaspar G. Schmidt died testate on December 10, 1898, leaving him surviving three married daughters and one son, viz., George K. Schmidt, Mrs. Barbara E. Kellner, (now deceased,) Mrs. Katherine Herbert and Mrs. Edna Wahl. By his last will and testament he appointed his son, George K. Schmidt, his son-in-law George W. Kellner, and his nephew Charles J. Schmidt, executors of his will and trustees of his estate, and devised and bequeathed to them all his property (subject to the payment of certain specified legacies and to a specific devise of certain real estate to such of his grandchildren as might be living in 1915) in trust, to be held by them for a period of fifteen years after his death, during which period the net income of his estate was to be paid to his four children, and at the end of that time to divide the residue of the estate among his children, "one-fourth to each, after the irregularities now existing by reason of advancements shall have been adjusted."
The seventh clause of the testator's will provides: "But I also direct that the shares of my daughters Barbara Elizabeth Kellner and Katherine Herbert shall be charged with ten shares of the capital stock of the K.G. Schmidt Brewing Company and $6000 in cash each, I having heretofore advanced such amounts to them or their respective husbands; and if hereafter I shall make any similar advancement to them or to either of my other two children, I direct that such advancement shall in like manner be deducted from his or her distributive share of my estate, it being my wish to treat all my children alike in all respects. And in the distribution of my estate I direct that my shares of the capital stock of the K.G. Schmidt Brewing Company shall be divided in kind, and that those of my children to whom or to whose husband any shares of said stock shall have been advanced as aforesaid, shall be charged with the number of shares advanced the same as though they were received at the time of such distribution. *Page 297 And during the said period of fifteen years I direct that all of the net income of my estate shall be paid to my said children in the same proportion in which they will share in the final distribution of my estate, — that is, one-fourth to each after the irregularities now existing by reason of advancements shall have been adjusted."
In the original decree the circuit court ordered the executor's account to be re-stated as to Mrs. Kellner, as follows:
Upon the appeal by Schmidt, the plaintiff in error here, to the Appellate Court, that court found that Barbara E. Kellner should be charged with the sum of $31,360.30 for shares in the brewing company and $6000 in cash, so that the first item under the head of "Deductions" would amount to $37,360.30 instead of $6460.70, as was stated in the decree of the circuit court. This finding would, of course, necessitate a corresponding change to be made in the second item of the deductions, which was stated to be $4851.24 in the original decree. The circuit court in its second decree, which is the one now before us for review, re-stated the account between the parties to be as shown by the following statement, viz.:
Add thereto the following: $ 8,160.39 Executor's commissions ............................ 5,500.00 Executor's commissions ............................ 750.00 ----------- $14,410.39 Interest at 5% from December 22, 1923............. 3,490.50 ----------- $17,900.89
Kellner judgment of $845.92, with interest at 5% from October 5, 1925, to date of decree, a total of ............................... $1,193.21 Interest thereon at 5% from December, 1923 289.04 -------- 1,482.25 ----------- Grand total ............................ $19,383.14" =========== Defendants in error in their brief and argument say: "We assume that on this appeal there is probably only one question, and that is whether or not the circuit court correctly construed the mandate of the Appellate Court in cause No. 29360 therein." That cause was the one in which the opinion inWahl v. Schmidt, supra, was filed. The question is whether, in accordance with the mandate of the Appellate Court, the circuit court should have fixed the excess payment of income on the amount of advancements from December 10, 1899, to December 10, 1914, at five per cent on the $37,360.30 advancement, or should have re-opened the cause to take testimony as to the rate earned by the estate during such period. *Page 300
On the first hearing in the circuit court, after the amount of advancements chargeable to Barbara E. Kellner had been fixed by the court at $6460.70, it was agreed by counsel for the respective parties that for the purpose of expediting the entrance of the decree, using the amount of $6460.70 as a basis, the amount of excess payments of income on such advancements for the period from December 10, 1899, to December 19, 1914, should be fixed in the decree at $4851.21. This amount was obtained by figuring interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on $6460.70 during such period, reserving the right to Schmidt to insist the advancements should have been fixed at $37,360. Accordingly, $4851.21 was incorporated in the decree without evidence or argument. These facts are shown by the record in the present case. The Appellate Court in its first hearing upheld Schmidt's contention and fixed the amount of the advancements at $37,360.30 instead of $6460.70. This change in the amount of the advancements necessarily changed the amount of excess payments of income on these advancements. While complaint was made in the Appellate Court, on the first hearing, as to the amount of the advancements, no complaint was made as to the method of figuring the excess income based on the advancements. Naturally, the Appellate Court on that hearing accepted the method as proper and remanded the cause, on the basis of the record then before it, for a re-statement of the account in accordance with the view expressed in the opinion, only, and not for a rehearing upon a question which was not raised by either party, and which, as stated by defendants in error in their brief, might have cost over "$5000 in time and master's fees to get the mathematical rate."
Defendants in error assigned cross-error that the Appellate Court erred in failing to allow the Kellner estate credit for one-half or three-fourths of the advancements charged to Mrs. Kellner. The advancements were a proper charge against her in favor of the Kaspar Schmidt estate, *Page 301 of which she was by the will only entitled to receive one-fourth on final distribution. The Herbert and Wahl shares are not before us for distribution on this appeal. Under the mandate of the Appellate Court on the first hearing we are only concerned with the re-statement of the executor's account with the Kellner estate.
In our opinion the circuit court in all respects strictly followed the mandate of the Appellate Court in re-stating the account, and its decree will be affirmed and the judgment of the Appellate Court reversed.
Appellate Court reversed, circuit court affirmed.
