Benjamin H. Austin et al., Appellants, v. John Munro et al., as Executors, etc., Respondents

Benjamin H. Austin et al., Appellants, v. John Munro et al., as Executors, etc., Respondents. A contract made' by executors in form as such*’ in consideration of services to be rendered in vindicating and asserting their claims to property in their representative capacity, and for the benefit of the estate they represent, does not bind the estate or create a charge upon the assets in the hands of the executors. In an action brought against defendants as executors, and where the form of the complaint, the substantial averments therein, and the relief demanded, characterize the action as against defendants in their representative capacity, upon demurrer the action cannot be converted into one against defendants individually. (Argued January 22, 1872; decided January 30, 1872.) Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, reversing an order of Special Term overruling demurrer to complaint. The allegations of the complaint are as follows: “ The plaintiffs above named complain of the defendants above named, and show that, on or about the 9th day of August, 1860, the defendants were duly appointed executors of the last will and testament of John Munro, deceased, and have ever since been and acted as such. “ And the plaintiffs further show that, prior to the commencement of this action, and during more than twelve years since the first day of May, 1857, they did, rendered and performed work, labor and legal services, and paid, laid out and expended large sums of money for the said John Munro, deceased, up to the time of his death, at his request, and for the defendants as executors as aforesaid, at the request and for the benefit of the estate of said John Munro, deceased, in and about defending a certain action in the Supreme Court . and in the Court of Appeals, wherein Sarah 0. Stevens was plaintiff, and the said deceased and Hannah his wife, and Boswell W. Haskins and Emma his wife, were defendants, and wherein, after the death of said deceased, these defendants and others, legatees and devisees of said deceased, were substituted parties defendant in place of said deceased, and John W. Clark was also added as party defendant; and in and about doing and performing other services for the defendants as executors as aforesaid, at their request. “ That the plaintiffs acted as the attorneys of record in said action of the said Haskins and wife, and, prior to the death of said deceased, acted as counsel for said deceased and wife in said action, at the request of said deceased. That the said action was an intricate and important action in equity, relating to a large quantity of land located in the city of Buffalo, and a large amount of moneys and securities. That the said Sarah C. Stevens claimed to recover in said action the said lands, moneys and securities. That the said John Munro, deceased, prior to his death, held the legal title to said lands, moneys and securities, in trust for said Haskins, and under an agreement to hold the same, or the proceeds thereof, until he should be reimbursed all moneys advanced, or to be advanced, for said Haskins, or otherwise, in consequence of his holding said land, money and securities as aforesaid. That the defendants,- and the said devisees and legatees of the said deceased, succeeded to his rights and obligations under said agreement with said Haskins, and were substituted as defendants in his place as aforesaid in said action, wherein said Sarah G. Stevens was plaintiff, and it was highly important to the defendants, and to the estate of said deceased/that said action should be successfully defended. And the plaintiffs aver that, after the death of said deceased, and on or about the first day of February, 1861, the defendants, at the said city of Buffalo, declined to pay for any future services of the plaintiffs in said" action unless the same should be successful, and it should be adjudged that the Munros should hold and retain said lands, moneys and securities; but the said defendants, as executors as aforesaid, then and there, for a valuable consideration, agreed that, if the said plaintiffs should continue to act in said action as attorneys and counsel, and the Munros and Haskins should be finally successful, and it should be adjudged in said action as aforesaid, that the defendants, as executors, would then pay the plaintiffs the balance of all their charges in said action. “ And the plaintiffs aver that they continued to act as attorneys and counsel in said action thereafter, until on or about the 22d day of January, 1870, at which' time the "said action was ended successfully for the defendants therein, and it was adjudged that the said Munros should hold and retain said land and moneys and securities. “ And the plaintiffs further say, that their services in said action, and all the services rendered to the defendants, as executors as aforesaid, by them as aforesaid, are reasonably worth the sum of $6,000, which the defendants, as executors as aforesaid, have been often requested to pay, and on account of which there is now due, owing and unpaid, from the defendants, as executors as aforesaid, to the plaintiffs, the sum of $2,820.63, with interest thereon from the 22d day of January, 1870; wherefore, the plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants, as executors as aforesaid, for the last mentioned sum, with interest thereon from the 22d day of January aforesaid, besides costs.” Defendants demur, among other grounds, that the complaint u does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against said defendants, as the executors of the last will and testament of John Munro, deceased;” also, that two causes of action are improperly united. JB. H. Austin, Jr., for appellants. The contract set up was a promise to settle the debt of the deceased, upon which the estate is liable. (Chouteau, v. Suydam, 21 N. Y., 179; Carter v. Phelps, Adm., 8 Johns., 343.) The executor may, in any case involving any of the funds of the estate, agree to pay, out of assets, reasonable compensation, and the assets will be liable. (McGloin's Executors v. Vanderlip, 27 Texas, 366; Noyes v. Blakeman, 6 N. Y., 567, 579, 580, 584; Frey v. Evans, 8 Wend., 530, 532.) The services are an entirety, and should be sued for as such. (Nichols v. Wilson, 11 M. & W., 106; Langdon v. Castleton, 30 Vt., 285, 289; Gleason v. Clark, 9 Cow., 57; Merritt v. Thompson, 27 N. Y., 225, 234; Smith v. Proctor's Adm'rs, 1 Sandf. S. C., 72; Cowles v. Thompson, 1 Redf., 490; S. C., 41 Barb., 237, 242, 246, 247, 249, 250, 254; Flowers' Ex'rs v. Garr, 20 Wend., 668; Ferrin v. Merrick, 53 Barb., 76, 89, 90-97; Coopwood v. Wallace, 12 Ala., 790-796; Pugsley v. Aikin, 1 Kern., 494-497; see, also, Armstrong's Executrix v. Hall, 17 How., 76-79; Lord v. Vreeland's Ex'r, 24 How. Pr., 316, 318.) The complaint alleges deceased held the property in trust, to which defendants succeeded. The services should, therefore, be paid out of the trust property. (Noyes v. Blakeman, 6 N. Y., 567-584; Downing v. Marshall, 37 N. Y., 380-389; Wilcox v. Smith, 26 Barb., 316.) Defendants may be held personally liable under the complaint. (Chouteau v. Suydam, 21 N. Y., 179, 183; Reynolds v. Reynolds' Adm., 3 Wend., 244, 246; Griffin v. Marquardt, 17 N. Y., 28, 33; Edmonston v. McLoud, 16 id., 543.) George Wadsworth for respondents. Executors are not liable, as such, for contracts made by them concerning estate. They cannot bind estate. (Ferrin v. Myrick, 41 N. Y., 315 ; Bucklin v. Chapin, 1 Lansing, 443; Myer v. Cole, 12 Johns., 349; Demott v. Field, 7 Cow., 58.) The language of complaint is conclusive as to its character. Defendants are sued as executors only. (Henshall v. Roberts, 5 East, 154; Caldwell v. Bowers, 6 id., 405; Worden v. Worthington, 2 Barb., 368; Scranton v. F. and M. Bank, 33 id., 527; Ogdensburgh Bank v. Van Rensselaer, Pres't, etc., 6 Hill, 240; Merritt v. Seaman, 6 N. Y., 168; Voorhies’ Code, 10th ed., p. 150, notes a, b ; 151, 5.) Plaintiffs cannot recover on the original retainer. The death of the party revokes the appointment. (Putnam v. Van Buren, 7 How. Pr., 31; Beach v. Gregory, 2 Abb., 203; Beach v. Gregory, 3 id., 78; Balbi v. Duvet, 3 Edw. Ch., 418; Bellinger v. Ford, 21 Barb. S. C., 311, 314; Livingston v. Olyphant, 3 Robt., 639.) Two causes of action are improperly united. This is a misjoinder, within section 144 of Code, subdivision 5. (Latting v. Latting, 4 Sandf. Ch., 31; Landan v. Levy, 1 Abb., 376; Benjamin v. Taylor, 12 Barb., 328; McMahon v. Allen, 3 Abb., 89; 12 How., 40; Myer v. Cole, 12 Johns., 349; Warth v. Radde, 28 How., 230; 18 Abb., 396; Demott v. Field, 7 Cow., 58.) [MAJORITY — Allen, J.] Allen, J. The complaint is upon a single cause of action, founded upon the contract of February, 1861, alleged to have been made with the defendants as executors of John Munro, deceased. All that is averred in relation to services in the action, upon the retainer of the testator, prior to that time, is mere matter of inducement; and there is no allegation of indebtedness by the testator for such services, or claim to recover upon his retainer or promise. It may possibly be inferred that the plaintiffs claimed that the testator was indebted to them at his decease for such services; but it is merely an inference, and the whole claim to recover is made, by the terms of the complaint, to rest upon the special promise of the defendants to pay, upon a contingency which, it is averred, has happened, all that should, at the successful termination of the action, be due the plaintiffs for professional services therein, whether performed before or after the death of the testator. Ho cause of action is stated against the testator upon and for which the defendants or his representatives are sought to be charged. It is evident the pleader did not contemplate a recovery upon a cause of action existing against the testator at his decease. The contract relied upon is alleged to have been made by the defendants as executors, in consideration of services thereafter to be rendered in vindicating and asserting the claims of the defendants to property and property rights, in their representative capacity, and for the benefit of the estate they represented. The liability assumed was contingent, and the promise was not in consideration of, or supported by, the retainer or agreement of the testator. It was a new contract, entirely independent of the dealings between the plaintiffs and the testator, except as the promise of the defendants, upon the consideration and upon the contingency mentioned in the complaint, included services rendered to the testator in his life. The contract, although made by the defendants in form as executors, did not bind the estate or create a charge upon the assets in the hands of the defendants. If the contract was valid in other respects, it bound the defendants personally, and not as representatives of the decedent. Chouteau v. Suydam (21 N. Y., 119) was peculiar in its circumstances, and the defendants were sued as executors upon a contract in writing signed by them as such, in a matter concerning the estate, and were held liable in their representative capacity as for money paid for the use of the estate. The question principally considered was as to the form of the execution of the contract, and whether the contract was the contract of the executors as such, or whether it was, in form, the personal contract of the defendants, and whether the executor could compromise the claim without the authority of the surrogate. Whether the contract was such as the executor could make, and thereby bind the estate, does not appear to have been considered. The learned judge who delivered the opinion of the court evidently was not of the opinion that the decision was in conflict with the series of cases in the courts of this State, before then decided, holding that a contract made by an executor upon a new consideration, although for the benefit of the estate, would not bind the estate. The case was well decided upon its peculiar circumstances, and does not conflict with prior decisions of the courts of this State. The subject-matter of the contract was, in fact, a contract and liability of the testator, incurred during his life. Pugsley v. Aiken (1 Kern., 494) was an action upon the contract and lease of the testator, to which the defendant, as executor, had succeeded, and not upon a new contract of the executors. The rule must be regarded as well settled, that the contracts of executors, although made in the interest and for the benefit of the estate they represent, if made upon a new and independent consideration, as for services rendered, goods or property sold and delivered, or other consideration moving between the promisee and the executors as promisors, are the personal contracts of the executors, and do not bind the estate, notwithstanding the services rendered, or goods or property furnished, or other consideration moving from the promissee, are such that the executors could properly have paid for the same from the assets, and been allowed for the expenditure in the settlement of their accounts. The principle is, that an executor may disburse and use the funds of the estate for purposes authorized by law, but may not bind the estate by an executory contract, and thus create a liability not founded upon a contract or obligation of the testator. (Ferrin v. Myrick, 41 N. Y., 315; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 3 Wend., 244; Demott v. Field, 7 Cow., 58; Myer v. Cole, 12 Johns., 349.) The rule is too well established in this State to be questioned or disregarded; and any departure from it would be mischievous. It follows, that the contract of the defendants did not bind the estate represented by them, and that no recovery can he had against them in their representative capacity, or to h§¡ levied de bonis testatoris. The action is against them as executors, and not as individuals. They are not merely described as executors by the simple addition of that title to their names, in which case the addition might be regarded as a description of the persons, and a judgment authorized against them individually (Merritt v. Seamen, 2 Seld., 168), but they are sued as executors. In the entitling of the summons and complaint, the action is stated to be against the defendants “ as executors,” etc. The agreement is averred to have been made by the defendants “ as executors,” and the provision is, “ that the defendants, as executors, would then pay the plaintiffs,” etc., and the demand of relief is for “judgment against the defendants as executors,” etc. The form of the complaint, and the substantive averments therein, as well as the form of the judgment demanded, characterize the action as against the defendants in their representative capacity, and not against them individually. A judgment for the plaintiffs, following the complaint, would be against the defendants as executors, for damages and costs, to be levied de bonis testatoris. The word “ as,” prefixed to the title of the defendants, indicates the character in which they are sued. (Chouteau v. Suydam, supra; Henshall v. Roberts, 5 East, 150; Cowell v. Watts, 6 id., 405.) The action cannot be converted into one against the defendants individually, by the judgment of the court on the demurrer. Whether, by proper allegations, upon an amendment, it may be converted into an equitable action to reach funds in the hands of the defendants, the fruits of the litigation in which the services were rendered, or in the alternative for judgment against the defendants personally, may be a question for the pleader, but is not before this court. The demurrer to the complaint in its present form is well taken, and the judgment of the Supreme Court must be affirmed, with costs, with leave to the plaintiffs to amend on payment of costs within twenty days after notice that the judgment of this court has been made the judgment of the court below. All concur. Judgment accordingly.