
    11664
    GEORGE H. HURST & SONS v. RHAME ET AL.
    
    (126 S. E., 133)
    Executors and Administrators — Funeral Expenses Not Entitled to Priority Over Chattel Mortgages in Distribution op Proceeds op Sale op Chattels. — Intestate’s funeral expenses do not have priority over chattel mortgages, in distribution of proceeds of sale of chattels by administrator, since Civ. Code 1922, § 5409, prescribing order of payment of debts, refers only to such assets in hands of administrator as remain after satisfaction of liens existing at time of intestate’s death.
    Before Featherstone, J., Sumter, April, 1924.
    Affirmed.
    Action by George H. Hurst & Sons against E. H. Rhame, Sr., and others. From order refusing to award priority to funeral expenses over chattel mortgage, plaintiffs appeal.
    
      Messrs. Harby, Nash & Hodges, for appellant,
    cite: Order of payment of deceased’s debts: Code 1922, Sec. 5409; Code 1912, Sec. 3632; Code 1902, Sec. 2538; Rev. St. 1893, Sec. 2048; Gen. St. 1883, Sec. 1926; 1789 (V. Stat. Ill), Act 1878 (XVI Stat, 686). Code must control: 96 S. C., 313.
    
      Messrs. Hpps & Levy, for respondent,
    cite: Order of payment of deceased’s debts: Code 1922, Sec. 5409; 11 S. C., 250; 1 McC. Eq., 466; 23 S. C., 114.
    January 13, 1925.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

The sole point in this appeal is whether the funeral expenses of an intestate have priority, under Section 5409, Code of 1922, over chattel mortgages, in the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of such chattels by an administrator.

The question is definitely determined in the negative by the cases hereinafter cited, which hold that the "order of payment of debts by an administrator, prescribed by said section, refer only to such assets, in the hands of the administrator, as remain after the satisfaction of the liens which existed at the death of the intestate: Rutledge v. Hazlehurst, 1 McCord, Eq., 466. Keckley v. Keckley, 2 Hill, Eq., 257. Haynsworth v. Frierson, 11 Rich., 476. Kinsler v. Holmes, 2 S. C., 483. Edwards v. Sanders, 6 S. C., 316. Baxter v. Baxter, 23 S. C., 114. DeLoach v. Sarratt, 58 S. C., 117; 36 S. E., 532.

The order appealed from is, accordingly, affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Fraser and Marion concur.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.  