Wilkins v. Ellett
| Decision Date | 16 April 1883 |
| Citation | 27 L.Ed. 718,108 U.S. 256,2 S.Ct. 641 |
| Parties | WILKINS v. ELLETT, Adm'r, etc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
W. Y. C. Humes and D. H. Poston, for plaintiff in error.
S. P. Walker and R. T. McNeal, for defendant in error.
This is an action of assumpsit on the common counts, brought in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Tennessee. The plaintiff is a citizen of Virginia, and sues as administrator, appointed in Tennessee, of the estate of Thomas N. Quarles. The defendant is a citizen of Tennessee, and surviving partner of the firm of F. H. Clark & Co. The answer sets up that Quarles was a citizen of Alabama at the time of his death; that the sum sued for has been paid to William Goodloe, appointed his administrator in that state, and has been inventoried and accounted for by him upon a final settlement of his administration; and that there are no creditors of Quarles in Tennessee. The undisputed facts, appearing by the bill of exceptions, are as follows:
Quarles was born at Richmond, Virginia, in 1835. In 1839 his mother, a widow, removed with him, her only child, to Courtland, Alabama. They lived there together until 1856, and she made her home there until her death, in 1864. In 1856 he went to Memphis, Tennessee, and there entered the employment of F. H. Clarke & Co., and continued in their employment as a clerk, making no investments himself, but leaving his surplus earnings on interest in their hands until January, 1866, when he went to the house of a cousin in Courtland, Alabama, and while there died by an accident, leaving personal estate in Alabama. On the twenty-seventh of January, 1866, Goodloe took out letters of administration in Alabama, and in February, 1866, went to Memphis, and there, upon exhibiting his letters of administration, received from defendant the sum of money due to Quarles, amounting to $3,455.22, (which is the same for which this suit is brought,) and included it in his inventory and in his final account, which was allowed by the probate court in Alabama. There were no other debts due from Quarles in Tennessee. All his next of kin resided in Virginia or in Alabama; and no administration was taken out on his estate in Tennessee until June, 1866, when letters of administration were there issued to the plaintiff.
There was conflicting evidence upon the question whether the domicile of Quarles at the time of his death was in Alabama or Tennessee. The jury found that it was in Tennessee, under instructions, the correctness of which we are not prepared to affirm, but need not consider, because, assuming them to be correct, we are of opinion that the court erred in instructing the jury that if the domicile was in Tennessee they must find for the plaintiff; and in refusing to instruct them, as requested by the defendant, that the payment to the Alabama administrator before the appointment of one in Tennessee, and there being no Tennessee creditors, was a valid discharge of the defendant, without reference to the domicile.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duehay v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co., 7183.
...States for Use of Mackey v. Coxe, 18 How. 100, 15 L.Ed. 299; Wilkins v. Ellett, 9 Wall. 740, 19 L.Ed. 586; Wilkins v. Ellett, 108 U.S. 256, 258, 2 S. Ct. 641, 27 L.Ed. 718; Wyman v. Halstead, 109 U.S. 654, 3 S.Ct. 417, 27 L. Ed. 1068; Bryan v. Curtis, 30 App.D.C. 234. 8 See Mersch, Probate ......
-
Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles v. King, 1774
...by him is a good acquittance, even as against a subsequently appointed ancillary executor Klein v. French, 57 Miss. 662; Wilkins v. Ellett, 108 U.S. 256; Schluter Bowery Sav. Bank. 117 N.Y. 125; Reynolds v. McMullen, 55 Mich. 568; Gray's Appeals, 116 Pa. St. 256. The usual custom is for the......
-
Beidler v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n
...in South Carolina; that their acquittance would have been a complete protection to the South Carolina debtor, Wilkins v. Ellett, 108 U. S. 256, 2 S. Ct. 641, 27 L. Ed. 718, and authorities cited in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Cothran in Wolfe v. Bank, 123 S. C. 208, 116 S. E. 451;......
-
Massachusetts Co., Inc. v. Berger
...an agent to sell stock in a Massachusetts corporation); Greves v. Shaw, 173 Mass. 205, 53 N.E. 372 (1899); Wilkins v. Ellett, 108 U.S. 256, 2 S.Ct. 641, 27 L.Ed. 718 (1883). The recognition of such acts by a foreign guardian does not derogate from the jurisdiction of the Probate Court in Ma......