A bill was filed claiming a specific performance of an alleged
contract to convey a house and lot in Georgetown for the benefit of
the wife of the complainant, the complainant having expended a
large sum of money in improving the property in the expectation
that it would be conveyed as required by the bill. The court not
considering that sufficient evidence of an agreement to convey the
property was given, ordered that the property should be sold, and
out of the proceeds that the advances made by the complainant
should be repaid. The property sold for a sum far less than the
amount expended.
Held that the balance unpaid after the
sale, was not a debt due by the estate of the father of the wife,
and could not be claimed of his representatives.
In December, 1822, the appellant filed in the circuit court a
creditor's bill in the usual form against the appellees, praying
for the sale of the real estate of George King, deceased, in aid of
his personal estate. It appeared that George King had died
intestate and insolvent in 1820, and with the assent of the
defendants a decree of sale of his real estate was made in January,
1823. Under this decree, sales were made, reported, and confirmed,
and in March, 1831, a final sale of all the real estate was made
except a house and lot on Civil Alley in Georgetown, which sale, on
the claim of Josias Thompson and wife, was set aside in April,
1831. As the sales were made, audits of the accounts of the estate
and the claims were made from March, 1827, to March, 1836. On the
last report of the auditor coming before the court, Alexander
Caldwell, administrator of Josias Thompson, who had become
deceased, exhibited to the circuit court a claim against George
King for a dividend out of the assets of his estate, and on his
motion the auditor's report was recommitted.
The record made the case of
George King's heirs v.
Thompson, 9 Pet. 204, a part of this case. Josias
Thompson and wife, in the case referred to, had claimed of the
heirs of George King, that the house and lot on Civil Alley in
Georgetown should be conveyed to them, alleging that an agreement
to that effect had been made with them in his lifetime by George
King, Josias Thompson having married the daughter of George King,
and in consideration of this agreement Josias Thompson had laid out
four thousand dollars in buildings and improvements on the lot. The
court not being satisfied upon the evidence that a decree for the
conveyance of the property should be made, ordered that a sale of
the property should be made and that the proceeds should be first
applied to repay to Josias Thompson the sum of four thousand
dollars laid out on the same, and that the balance should be paid
over for the benefit of the creditors of George King.
Under this decree the property was sold, and it produced the
sum
Page 38 U. S. 129
of eight hundred and twenty-seven dollars, leaving of the sum
expended by Josias Thompson, three thousand one hundred and
seventy-three dollars, unpaid.
In April, 1837, the administrator of Josias Thompson claimed
from the estate of George King a dividend on the sum of four
thousand dollars, the amount laid out on the house and lot, being
two thousand six hundred and twenty-six dollars, less the sum of
eight hundred and twenty-seven dollars, the proceeds of the house
and lot.
This claim was made on the allegation that Josias Thompson was a
creditor of George King to the amount of four thousand dollars, by
the expenditure of that sum on the house and lot, and that he was
entitled to come in and have, on that amount, an equal dividend
with the other creditors of the estate of George King, deducting
the proceeds of the property in Georgetown.
The circuit court made a decree allowing to the administrator of
Josias Thompson the amount claimed by him, and the defendants
prosecuted this appeal.
Page 38 U. S. 130
MR. JUSTICE CATRON delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1812, Thompson married the daughter of King, who, being a man
of considerable estate, offered to give Thompson a house and lot in
Georgetown, then in a dilapidated state, if Thompson would repair
the premises so as to make them a comfortable residence, King
saying he intended the property for his daughter, the wife of
Thompson.
Thompson accepted the offer, went into possession, and expended
in repairs and improvements, four thousand dollars.
About 1816, Thompson claimed to have the property conveyed to
him by King, who refused, but offered to vest the title in trust
for Thompson's wife. Thompson made several alterative propositions
-- one amongst others, that the house and lot should be valued as
of the date when it was put into his possession, and that he would
pay the amount over to King, and take a title, which proposition
the latter accepted, or offered to convey a part of the lot,
including the house, to Thompson, and another part to Thompson's
wife. Under these circumstances, Thompson continued to occupy the
premises for a time, and afterwards removed from, and rented them,
King setting up no claim to have the property returned to him.
In 1820 he died, and the title descended on his heirs. King, at
his death, was largely indebted, say 36,000 dollars, and much over
the means of payment; his creditors filed a bill to have
satisfaction
Page 38 U. S. 131
of their demands out of the real as well as personal estate, and
the trustee appointed by the circuit court to sell the property,
amongst other lands, sold that claimed by Thompson. The latter
filed his bill to avoid the sale, and for a specific performance
against King's heirs, the trustees of the creditors, &c., the
record in which cause, as reported in
34 U. S. 9 Pet.
204, is by the exceptions and an agreement made a part of this
proceeding.
The creditors denied the existence of the title set up by
Thompson, claiming the house and lot as subject to King's debts,
and went to issue. The court below decreed specific performance,
from which the defendants appealed to this Court, where the decree
below was reversed. But Thompson having an alternative prayer in
his bill, claiming priority of the general creditors of King in the
form of a lien on the property to the value of the improvements he
had put upon it, this Court held that although there was not
sufficient evidence to authorize a decree for title, still Thompson
had, by the rules of a court of equity, a lien for the money
expended on the improvements, and the cause was remanded with a
mandate that the property should be advertised and sold, and the
proceeds of the sale be applied first, to the satisfaction of the
money expended by Thompson in making the improvements, "and the
balance, if any, to be paid over for the benefit of the creditors
of King."
The property was accordingly sold, and brought little more than
800 dollars, leaving upwards of 3,000 dollars unsatisfied.
The trustee of the creditors of King's estate from time to time
made various sales and reports, and at April term, 1837, reported
that Alexander Caldwell, the administrator of Thompson (then
deceased), had presented as a debt due from the estate, the balance
not refunded to Thompson by the sale of the house and lot. The
other creditors resisted the claim, as forming no demand on the
estate, and insisted Thompson's remedy extended only to the
property improved and fixed with the lien by the decree of the
Supreme Court. But the circuit court overruled the exception and
adjudged that Thompson's administrator should come in for an equal
dividend with the general creditors.
From this order the creditors appealed. Thompson, by his bill to
subject the house and lot, claimed a priority of lien and had it
allowed to him in exclusion of the general creditors; he proceeded
against the thing, and did not set up any personal demand extending
beyond the lien against the other estate of King, and we are
clearly of opinion none exists. And therefore order that so much of
the proceeding in the circuit court as allowed the administrator of
Thompson to come in with the general creditors of King to receive a
dividend founded on said claim be
Reversed, and that the cause be remanded for further
proceedings.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Supreme Court of the United States for the District of
Columbia
Page 38 U. S. 132
holden in and for the County of Washington, and was argued by
counsel. On consideration whereof, it is adjudged and decreed by
this Court, that so much of the decree of the said circuit court in
this cause as allowed the administrator of Thompson to come in with
the general creditors of King, to receive a dividend founded on his
claim be and the same is hereby reversed with costs, and that this
cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court
for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity to the
opinion of this Court.
