Gambar halaman


death. They are mere debts due the court said that all the rents which acdeceased, for which his administra- crued and became payable in the lifetion alone sue and recover." time of the lessor should go to the adClaussen v. Claussen (1917) 279 Ill. ministrator exclusively. 99, 116 N. E. 693.

9. Maine. 6. Indiana.

An administratrix may maintain an Rents which have accrued previous- action to recover rent of land, where ly to the death of the lessor are col- the rent accrued previously to the lectable by the personal representa- lessor's death. Plummer V. Bowie tive. King v. Anderson (1863). 20 Ind. (1884) 76 Me. 496. 385; Dorsett v. Gray (1884) 98 Ind.

10. Massachusetts. 273; Watson v. Penn (1886) 108 Ind. 21, 58 Am. Rep. 26, 8 N. E. 636; Lowrey

The rents and profits which accrued v. Reef (1890) 1 Ind. App. 244, 27 N.

before the death of the lessor intestate E. 626.

are personal property and belong to Rents which accrued prior to the

the administrator. Clark v. Seagraves death of the owner belong to the per

(1904) 186 Mass. 430, 71 N. E. 813. sonal representative, but it is neces

"If a lessor dies during the term, the sary to show that rents did accrue, in

rents accrued during his lifetime are order to entitle the administrator to

personal property, and pass to his ad

Codman v. American sue for them. Humphries v. Davis

ministrator." (1885) 100 Ind. 369.

Piano Co. (1918) 229 Mass. 285, 118 Under a statute (Rev. Stat. 1881,

N. E. 344. § 5223) providing that when a ten

But it was held in Brigham v. Hunt ant for life, who shall have demised

(1890) 152 Mass. 257, 25 N. E. 468,

that there was no Massachusetts statany land, shall die on or after the day when any rent becomes due,

ute or common-law right enabling an his executor or administrator may

administrator, without license, to recover from the undertenant the

prosecute a real action for rent and whole rent due, and if he dies be

for the recovery of the intestate's land fore the day when any rent is to be

obtained by fraud. come due the executor or administra

11. Missouri. tor may recover the proportion of rent In Coberly v. Coberly (1905) 189 which accrued before his death, and Mo. 1, 87 S. W. 957, it was held that the remainderman shall recover the rents which accrued and became due residue, it has been held where the prior to the death of the lessor did not lessor, who was a life tenant, died be- inure to the benefit of the heirs by defore the lease expired, that his ad- scent cast. ministrator could recover the rent

12. New Jersey. which accrued prior to his death. Henry v. Stevens (1886) 108 Ind. 281,

It was held in Allen v. Van Houton 9 N. E, 356.

(1842) 19 N. J. L. 47, that the adminis

trator could not recover a portion of 7. lowa.

the annual rent which fell due four In Crawford v. Ginn (1872) 35 Iowa, days after the death of the lessor, but 543, it was held that the administrator was confined in his recovery to rent is the only person entitled to collect which had accrued during the lessor's the rents which accrued prior to the

lifetime. death of the landlord, and devote them Where an administrator collects the to the payment of the debts of the es- rents after the death of the landlord, tate,

and no objection is offered by the

widow or heirs, it must be assumed 8. Kentucky.

the rents were due before the death In O'Bannon v. Roberts (1834) 2 of the landlord and were rightfully Dana, 54, it appeared that the occu- received by the administrator as aspant of certain lands of the intestate sets. Search v. Search (1876) 27 N. J. held under a lease from him. The Eq. 137.

13. New York.

(1901) 35 Misc. 171, 71 N. Y. Supp. 473, In Miller v. Crawford (1891) 26 was that rent accrued and fully due Abb. N. C. 376, 14 N. Y. Supp. during the lifetime of the intestate be358, in an application for instruc- longs to the administrators as assets tion by a receiver of rents of leased of the estate. real estate of Thaddeus C. Kinnier,

14. Ohio. deceased, the court said: “The rents of said real estate collected by the

"If rent has accrued (at the death receiver are conceded to fall into

of the lessor) it goes to the administhree classes: First, rents which

trator or executor as personal propwere payable in advance, and were

erty." Crawford v. Chapman (1848) due on the 1st day of February, 1890,

17 Ohio, 449. before Kinnier's death. Second, rents

15. Pennsylvania. which were not payable in advance,

If the person entitled to receive and which did not become due until

the rent outlives the day on which it after Kinnier's death, but which were

becomes due, but dies intestate before partly earned before his death; and

it is paid, it will go to his personal "third, rents which were entirely

representative as a part of his perearned, but which had not been col

sonal estate. Bank of Pennsylvania lected when Kinnier died. ... Sec

v. Wise (1834) 3 Watts, 399. tion 6, title e, chap. 6, part 2, of the Revised Statutes (3 Banks, 7th ed.

16. South Carolina. 2295), provides that there shall be in- It was decided in Kirkpatrick v. cluded among the property of a de- Atkinson (1859) 32 S. C. Eq. (11 cedent's estate which shall be deemed

Rich.) 27, that the rents and profits assets and shall pass as such to his which accrued during the lifetime of executors and administrators as part an intestate belong to the personal of the personalty, ‘rents reserved to

representative. the deceased which had accrued at the time of his death.' ... There can

17. Tennessee. be no doubt that such administrator In Rowan v. Riley (1873) 6 Baxt. is entitled to the rents which were en

67, the court stated the facts and the tirely earned, but which had not been rule which is applied in Tennessee, collected; .. such rents, in the as follows: “It appears upon the face language of the Revised Statutes, had

of the declaration that a portion of accrued at the time of his death. I

the rents sued for accrued and were am also of the opinion that the ad

due in the lifetime of Elizabeth King, ministrator is entitled to the rents who was the owner of the land; but which were payable in advance, and what portion accrued before, and which became due

three days

what portion afterwards, is not stated. before the lessor's death. Although The rule is that “if the landlord dies payable in advance, the rent was due

before the rent becomes due, it goes or had accrued at the time of Kinnier's

to the heir as incident to the reverdeath, within the meaning of the pro

sion; but if he dies after it has bevision of the Revised Statutes above

come payable, it goes to the executor referred to. It therefore follows, un

or administrator, as part of the per

sonal estate.' " der the provisions of the Revised Stat

It was held in Travis v. Sitz (1916) utes, that the administrator of the de

135 Tenn. 156, L.R.A.1917A, 671, 185 cedent is entitled to all rents collected

S. W. 1075, that the heirs at law could by him that had accrued and were unpaid on or before February 4, 1890.

not recover rents which had become

due during the lifetime of the deceAs to the rents falling under the

dent. See also Rowan v. Riley (1873) second clause above stated, if the Act

6 Baxt. 67. of 1875 does not apply, it would seem that the common-law rule still pre

18. England. vails."

In Barker v. Talcot (1687) 1 Vern. The holding in the case of Re Foulds 473, 23 Eng. Reprint, 600, it appeared that a son acting as administrator of fully accrued at sunset, and belonged his father's estate accepted a rent note to the administrator. from a tenant, for rent in arrear on

b. Where landlord dies testate. his father's lands. During the period of administration the son died intes

1. United States. tate and an administrator de bonis In Boyce v. Grundy (1835) 9 Pet. non was appointed for the father's es- 275, 9 L. ed. 127, the record showed tate. A question arose whether the that in an action against the adminisrent belonged to the representatives

trator with will annexed the court apof the son or to those of the father. It pointed a master to take an account was held that the rent belonged to the

of the assets. The master reported no administrator of the son, and not to assets except $2,100 received by the the administrator de bonis non of the

administrator as rents of the testafather. The rent note was an altera

tor's real estate. The court said that tion of property and constituted pay

if the rents virtually became the propment.

erty of the testator during his lifeIt was held in Dollen v. Batt (1848)

time, they were to be deemed assets 4 C. B. N. S. 760, 140 Eng. Reprint, in the hands of the administrator, 1290, 27 L. J. C. P. N. S. 281, 4 Jur. N.

adding: “We are of opinion that, unS. 835, that where C. leased premises

der all the circumstances, the latter to the defendant, reserving rent to

is the predicament in which they are herself, her executors, administrators

to be viewed, and that the master and assigns, and c. afterwards, by ought to have reported the sum of lease and release, conveyed the rever

$2,100, so received, to be assets." sion to D. and another, trust for the It appeared in Broadwell v. Banks wife of the defendant, the deed con

(1905) 134 Fed. 470, that a testator taining a power to the trustees to

devised to the plaintiff, his wife, cerreceive and retain their trust ex- tain leased premises, together with all penses, and the defendant underlet the his personal property remaining after premises, and the trustees assented to the payment of debts and certain his receiving rent in half of his wife,

legacies. Action was brought to reand D., the surviving trustee, died, his

cover the balance of rents accrued up widow and administratrix was entitled

to the time of the testator's death, and to recover the arrears of rent accru

of rents which accrued during the ing in the lifetime of the trustee.

period following the death. It was Where a tenant for life made a lease held that, in the absence of statute to for years, reserving the rent at Lady the contrary, the rents which had acday and Michaelmas by half-yearly

crued during the lifetime of the landpayments, and died on Michaelmas lord were personal property, and day about 12 o'clock at noon, the rent

should go to the personal representabelonged to the executor, and not to

tive as assets of the estate. Such the remainderman. But it was held,

rentals passed to the personal reprethat as to rents made under a power of

sentative absolutely, and not to the leasing, they still existed, and con- heirs at law or to the legatees or benetinued after the death of the lessor in

ficiaries under the vill. the same manner as they had during

2. Georgia. his life, and the tenants had until the

The Georgia statute (Code, $ 2279) last instant of those days to pay the

vests in the personal representative rents; and that when the lessor dies

the right to collect and distribute the before, the rent goes, along with the

rents on land leased by the decedent, reversion, to those who are entitled to

so far as they accrued before his it. Strafford v. Wentworth (1720) Prec. in Ch. 555, 24 Eng. Reprint, 249.

death. Autrey V. Autrey (1894) 94 In Southern v. Bellasis (1701) 1 P.

Ga. 579, 20 S. E. 431; Strickland v.

Thornton (1907) 2 Ga. App. 377, 58 Wms. 179, 24 Eng. Reprint, 346, it was

S. E. 540. held that, where the lessor seised of a life estate died at 9 o'clock at night on

3. Indiana. the day the rent was due, the rent had In McDowell v. Hendrix (1879) 67 Ind. 513, 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 96, it ap- The court said in Wright v. Williams peared that the executor sued for (1826) 5 Cow. 338, that the executor rents and royalties which had ma- could distrain only for rent due at the tured and become due three months death of the testator. before the death of the testator. The It appeared in Van Rensselaer v. court stated the rule as follows: "It Hayes (1848) 5 Denio, 477, that at the is very clear, we think, that what- time of the death of the testator the ever rent or royalty had matured and rent was in arrear on his real estate. become due, under the lease in suit, The executors sought to recover the in the lifetime of the appellee's testa- rent. The court declared that the rent tor, would go to the appellee, as exec- due at the decease of the testator went utor, and not to the heirs at law or to his executors, who had full power the devisees of the decedent."

to pursue the ordinary remedies by

action or distress to recover the same. 4. Kentucky. According to the holding in Combs

6. North Carolina. v. Branch (1836) 4 Dana, 547, the per

The record in King v. Little (1877) sonal representative is the only per

77 N. C. 138, showed that the executor son who can sue for rent accrued, but sued to recover the rents which had acunpaid, at the time of his testator's crued on his testatrix's leased land. death.

The original lease was given by the It was said in Vance v. Vance testatrix and her husband. Upon the (1903) 116 Ky, 520, 76 S. W. 370, that

husband's death all rights came to the "rents accruing before the death of

wife. It was held that her executor the testator vested in the executor as

could recover the rents which had acassets, but the rents accruing after rued during the period between the the death of the testator, and before death of the husband and that of the the confirmation of the sale, belonged testatrix. to the heirs."

7. South Carolina. But in Anderson v. Richard (1896)

Where rent has already accrued dur99 Ky. 631, 37 S. W. 62, it was held:

ing the lifetime of the landlord, or “The rent which accrued after the

where the same has been secured by death of the owner of the real estate

rent note or other obligation of the belonged of right to the heir or dev

tenant, the rent belongs to the execuisee, but we are not aware of any de

tor as assets of the estate. Huff v. cision which sustains the contention

Latimer (1890) 33 S. C. 255, 11 S. E. of appellant. More than ten months

758. of the rent of the land in question had accrued (whether due or not) be

8. England. fore the death of the testator, and that

In Prescott v. Boucher (1832) 3 rent, so accrued, was properly ad- Barn. & Ad. 849, 110 Eng. Reprint, 312, judged to the appellee, and the residue it appeared that the landlord seised in to appellant." The evidence in this fee of land demised it for a term of case showed that ten months of the years, and reserved rent. On the yearly lease had expired at the time death of the landlord testate, it was of the landlord's death.

held that his executor did not have the

remedy of distress for rents accruing 8. New York.

during the lifetime of the testator. In Hotchkiss v. Auburn & R. R. Co., The testator was not a tenant in fee (1862) 36 Barb. 603, it was held that simple of the rent within the meaning the rents and profits due before the of the Statute 32 Hen. VIII. chap. 37, death of the lessor belong to the exec- § 1. The executor was confined to his utor.

remedy for the debt. It was held in Van Rensselaer v. In Jones v. Jones (1832) 3 Barn. & Platner (1800) 2 Johns. Cas. 17, that Ad. 967, 110 Eng. Reprint, 357, it was the executor was entitled to rent said that the point was precisely which accrued previously to the death similar to that in Prescott v. Boucher, of the testator.


R. E. LaG.

GRACE J. ROSS, Respt.,



Minnesota Supreme Court - January 5, 1923.

(154 Minn. 186, 191 N. W. 428.) Insurance for benefit of wife fraud.

1. An insolvent husband may insure his life and devote a moderate portion of his earnings to the payment of premiums thereon, for the benefit of his wife and dependent children, without thereby being held to intend to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors.

[See note on this question beginning on page 51.] Fraudulent conveyance

insurance - rights to proceeds of insurance for wife.

policy. 2. To maintain an action on behalf 4. The proofs justify the finding of the creditors of a deceased hus- that the plaintiff was the owner of band, to recover premiums paid by him the proceeds of the $6,000 policy in while insolvent, in order to provide her own right, and not as trustee for for his family after his death, fraud the creditors of the insured, and that must be not only alleged but proved. the assignments of $2,000 of such in[See 12 R. C. L. 510.]

surance to the defendant bank were Evidence – sufficiency.

procured by fraud, and without con3. Evidence considered, and held

sideration. sufficient to justify the finding that Appeal — evidence subject to future the insurance was not unreasonable ruling – exceptions. in amount, that it was procured and 5. Where evidence is received upon the premiums paid thereon in good a trial, subject to a future ruling on faith, for the protection of the wife its admissibility, the party wishing to and children of the insured after his avail himself thereof should, at the death, and that there was no intent proper time, secure a ruling thereon, or purpose on his part to defraud his so that it may appear of record. creditors.

[See 26 R. C. L. 1055.] Headnotes by QUINN, J.

APPEAL by intervener from a judgment of the District Court for Rock County (Nelson, J.) in favor of plaintiff, and from an order refusing to amend the findings and denying a motion for new trial in an action brought to recover the amount alleged to be due on two life insurance policies. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Messrs. Hansen & Engan, A. M. Ill, 104, 7 Am. St. Rep. 345, 16 N. E. Freeman, and Parliman & Parliman, 236; Cole v. Marple, 98 Ill. 58, 38 Am. for appellant:

Rep. 83; Wagner v. Koch, 45 Ill. App. During the period from the date of 501; Morehead v. Mayfield, 109 Ky. the first policy, and during all times 51, 58 S. W. 473; Ingles v. New Engfrom that time until his death, Ross land Mut. L. Ins. Co. 27 Fed. 249; was insolvent; and when he paid the Roberts v. Winton, 100 Tenn. 484, 41 premiums on said policies he was com- L.R.A. 275, 45 S. W. 673; Lytle v. mitting a fraud on his creditors; and Baldinger, 84 Ohio St. 1, 95 N. E. by reason thereof, the defendant bank, 389, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 894; Re Jordan, a creditor, is entitled to recover the 2 Hask. 362, Fed. Cas. No. 7,511; Hise amount of the premiums so paid. v. Hartford L. Ins. Co. 90 Ky. 191, 29

Houston v. Maddux, 179 Ill. 377, 53 Am. St. Rep. 358, 13 S. W. 367; ThompN. E. 599; Marmon v. Harwood, 124 son v. Cundiff, 11 Bush, 567; Central

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »