Tuesday, March 1, 2016

MARSCHALL vs. ANTHOLTZ 54 PHIL 448



FACTS: 

Walter Toehl was the manager of Behn, Meyer & Co and also its chemist. He was also the owner of a parcel of land located in Sta. Ana, Manila. Toehl contracted Antholtz to manage the land as oil mill. The two agreed that Antholtz would conduct the business in his own name. Meanwhile, Antholtz was the owner of A. Murray & Co. Toehl assumed possession of the corporation with a view to reviving it using the assets of the oil mill. After Toehl’s death, it was found that he was short in his account with Behn to the extent of P150 Million. A claim was made against the estate of Toehl. Marschall was appointed administrator of the estate, and the present action was institute to recover possession of the oil mill property and hold Antholtz personally liable. Behn presupposes that Toehl and Antholtz were in collusion to put the money in the oil mill.

ISSUE: WON Antholtz is liable.

RULING: 

YES. In section 711 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is declared that if any person, before the granting of letters testamentary or of administration on the estate of a deceased person, embezzles, or alienates, any of the effects of such deceased person, such person shall be liable to an action in favor of the executor or administrator of such estate for double the value of the property sold, embezzled, or alienated, to be recovered for the benefit of the estate. But this provision has reference primarily to funds that are lost by embezzlement or alienation, and it cannot be understood as making the manager of a going concern liable for proceeds of sales applied by him to the proper uses of the business, as occurred in this case. The proof shows that the personal property other than the products of the mill, sold by Antholtz in the manner mentioned, was sold with the consent of the manager of Behn, Meyer & Co., H. Mij., and with the consent of the administrator of Walter Toehl, and the proceeds of these sales, as well as the proceeds of the products of the mill, were applied by Antholtz to the obligations incurred by him in running the business, without the improper diversion of a single cent

No comments:

Post a Comment