{ "id": 2561384, "name": "Effie Bulliner Russell, Appellant, vs. J. F. Bulliner, Admr., Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Russell v. Bulliner", "decision_date": "1938-12-15", "docket_number": "No. 24692", "first_page": "260", "last_page": "263", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "370 Ill. 260" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "154 Ill. App. 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5314921 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/154/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 Ill. 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2872323 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/114/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ill. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4727316 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/259/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 S. W. 851", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 Tex. 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "case_ids": [ 2245608 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tex/88/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 S. E. 662", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 S. C. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 4416292 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/62/0346-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 S. W. 780", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Mo. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 955308 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/119/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Atl. 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Md. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1812591 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md/67/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 La. Ann. 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La. Ann.", "case_ids": [ 5231634 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/la-ann/23/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Pa. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1010424 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/57/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 N. E. 981", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ohio St. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio St.", "case_ids": [ 937555 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-st/56/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 N. J. Eq. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J. Eq.", "case_ids": [ 787143 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj-eq/5/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 Miss. 233", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 8841753 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "419" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/miss/105/0233-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Kan. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 1210467 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan/66/0386-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 451, "char_count": 6625, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.928993896756009e-08, "percentile": 0.5008021703195823 }, "sha256": "e6927a905f0849564dd6702678799bffae9147e2ac3200ee88c70903c5787362", "simhash": "1:93a9c02da6f974f2", "word_count": 1128 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:05:39.243894+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Effie Bulliner Russell, Appellant, vs. J. F. Bulliner, Admr., Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Farthing\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFrederick L. Bulliner and Fffie, his wife, executed their promissory note for $790, dated July 1, 1918, payable to John L. Bulliner, Frederick\u2019s father. The son died June 19, 1923, intestate and insolvent, leaving the note unpaid. John L. Bulliner died intestate, June 15, 1932. The administrator of his estate took credit in his final report for $1051.98, the amount then due on the note, and charged that amount against the distributive share due the guardian of Fred and June Bulliner, Frederick L. Bulliner\u2019s minor children. Their guardian, the appellant, excepted to this item but the county and circuit courts of Williamson county overruled the exception. The Appellate .Court for the Fourth District affirmed this ruling and the case is before us for further review on certificate of importance.\nThe sole question presented is: Can a debt due from a deceased father be charged against his children\u2019s share of the personal property belonging to the estate of their grandfather who died intestate after his son\u2019s death ?\nIn Illinois the descent of property in intestate estates is governed wholly by statute. Section 1 of the Descent act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1937, chap. 39, sec. 1) provides: \u201cThat estates, both real and personal, of residents and non-resident proprietors in this State dying intestate, or whose estates or any part thereof shall be deemed and taken as intestate estate, after all just debts and claims against such estate are fully paid, shall descend to and be distributed in manner following, to-wit: First \u2014 To his or her children and their descendants, in equal parts; the descendants of the deceased child or grand-child taking the share of their deceased parents in equal parts among them.\u201d\nNo Illinois decision in a case involving personal property, alone, has been called to our attention. The courts of last resort in other States have held divergent views in simila\u201cr cases and in construing similar statutes. Decisions holding that the debt of the father to the grandfather may be charged to the distributive share of the grandchildren are Head v. Spier, 66 Kan. 386, 71 Pac. 833; Adams v. Yancy, 105 Miss. 233, 62 So. 229, 419; Batton v. Allen, 5 N. J. Eq. 99; Martin v. Martin, 56 Ohio St. 333, 46 N. E. 981; Hughes\u2019 Appeal, 57 Pa. 179. Decisions that such a deduction cannot be made are Wells v. Wells, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 216, Morgan\u2019s Succession, 23 La. Ann. 290, Kendall v. Mondell, 67 Md. 444, 10 Atl. 240, Barnum v. Barnum, 119 Mo. 63, 24 S. W. 780, Stokes v. Stokes, 62 S. C. 346, 40 S. E. 662, Powers v. Morrison, 88 Tex. 133, 30 S. W. 851.\nIn Ellis v. Dumond, 259 Ill. 483, we held that grandchildren took the real estate there in question by descent from their intestate grandfather, free from any lien for the debt which their deceased father owed him. At page 489 we said: \u201cHenry P. Dumond having died prior to the death of his father never had any interest in these lands. The children of Henry P. Dumond are not personally liable for his debts or for any judgment which was secured against his estate. Not being liable for the debts of their father, we know of no theory upon which their interest in these lands can be subjected to the payment of the balance due on this claim.\u201d\nThe appellee relies on what we said in Simpson v. Simpson, 114 Ill. 603, but that case involved an advancement of real estate, and for that reason is not in point. The appellee also relies on Crowley v. McCambridge, 154 Ill. App. 135, and Doubet v. Doubet, 196 id. 289, but those cases also involved advancements and are for the same reason inapplicable.\nSection 8 of the Descent act provides: \u201cIf a child or other descendant so advanced, dies before the intestate, leaving issue, the advancement shall be taken into consideration in the division or distribution of the estate of the intestate, and the amount thereof shall be allowed accordingly by the representatives of the heirs so advanced, as so much received towards their share of the estate, in like manner as if the advancement had been made directly to them.\u201d It will be noted that no mention is made of a debt due to the intestate and, therefore, the rule of expressio unius exclusio alterius applies.\nThe appellee contends that in computing the amount due the grandchildren from their grandfather\u2019s estate, his administrator should have the right to deduct a debt due his intestate from his deceased son. The reason urged is that, unlike real estate, personal property passes to the administrator. The effect of this would be to construe section 1 of the Descent act to mean that children or grandchildren are made debtors, at least to the extent of their inheritance, and regardless of their minority. This is directly opposite to what we said in Ellis v. Dumond, supra, and there is no sufficient reason why this should be so where personal property, alone, is involved, instead of real estate. The administrator\u2019s authority over personal property extends only to the use of it in payment of debts and claims, and when all such indebtedness is paid, together with the costs of administration, the title to the remaining personal property and money is in the heirs of the intestate unaffected by the debts owed by their immediate ancestor who predeceased the administrator\u2019s intestate.\nSection 1 of the Descent act defines the quantum of the estate that the grandchildren will take from their grandfather. If the appellee\u2019s contention were sustained it would follow, logically, that their share in the estate would be subject to the debts due from their immediate ancestor to his general creditors. In Ellis v. Dumond, supra, we pointed out that the immediate ancestor never owned the land but that the title passed by descent from the grandfather to the grandchildren. In the case before us Frederick L. Bulliner died first and never had any interest in the estate of his father. The distributive share of John L. Bulliner\u2019s minor grandchildren was in no way affected by the debt due from Frederick L. Bulliner to his father, and the judgments of the county and circuit courts and the Appellate Court were erroneous.\nThe judgments of the Appellate Court and the circuit court are reversed and the case is remanded to the circuit court of Williamson county, with directions to sustain the guardian\u2019s exception.\nReversed and remanded, with directions.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Farthing" } ], "attorneys": [ "Warford & Franklin, for appellant.", "H. L. Zimmerman, and Stone & Fowler, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 24692.\nEffie Bulliner Russell, Appellant, vs. J. F. Bulliner, Admr., Appellee.\nOpinion filed December 15, 1938\nRehearing denied Feb. 8, 1939.\nWarford & Franklin, for appellant.\nH. L. Zimmerman, and Stone & Fowler, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0260-01", "first_page_order": 260, "last_page_order": 263 }