The New York Trust Company v. Riley

• Citation: 24 Del.Ch. 354,16 A.2d 772
• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decision Date: 29 October 1940
• Parties: THE NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, a corporation of the State of New York, as Administrator c. t. a. of the Estate of JULIA M. HUNGERFORD, Deceased, One of the Defendants Below, Appellant, v. JULIAN RILEY and HUGHES SPALDING, as Executors of the Estate of JULIA M. HUNGERFORD, Deceased, One of the Defendants Below, Appellee, AND COCO-COLA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a corporation of the State of Delaware, Complainant Below, Appellee, THE NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, a corporation of the State of New York, as temporary Administrator of the Estate of JULIA M. HUNGERFORD, Deceased, One of the original Defendants Below, Appellee

16 A.2d 772

24 Del.Ch. 354

THE NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, a corporation of the State of New York, as Administrator c. t. a. of the Estate of JULIA M. HUNGERFORD, Deceased, One of the Defendants Below, Appellant, v. JULIAN RILEY and HUGHES SPALDING, as Executors of the Estate of JULIA M. HUNGERFORD, Deceased, One of the Defendants Below, Appellee, AND COCO-COLA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a corporation of the State of Delaware, Complainant Below, Appellee, THE NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, a corporation of the State of New York, as temporary Administrator of the Estate of JULIA M. HUNGERFORD, Deceased, One of the original Defendants Below, Appellee

Court of Chancery of Delaware

October 29, 1940

Appeal from the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

Supreme Court, June Term, 1940.

Decree of the court reversed.

Clarence A. Southerland, Paul Leahy, Daniel O. Hastings, and Caleb R Layton, 3d., (Marion Smith and J. Richard Bowden, both of Atlanta, Ga., of counsel), for appellant.

Richards Layton & Finger, James A. Branch and MacDougald, Troutman &amp Arkwright, all of Atlanta, Ga. (James A. Branch and Dan MacDougald, both of Atlanta, Ga., and Aaron Finger, of Wilmington, of counsel), for the Executors.

LAYTON C. J., and RICHARDS, SPEAKMAN, and TERRY, JJ., sitting. RICHARDS, J., dissenting. RODNEY, J., by reason of illness took no part in the decision.

OPINION

LAYTON, Chief Justice.

Coca-Cola International Corporation, a Delaware corporation filed its bill of interpleader in the Court of Chancery against The New York Trust Company, as temporary administrator of the estate of Julia M. Hungerford, deceased, and Julian Riley and Hughes Spalding, executors of the last will and testament of the deceased, to have determined the question whether the executors or the temporary administrator were entitled to new certificates for the shares of stock in the corporation belonging to the deceased at the time of her death.

Letters testamentary were issued to the executors in probate proceedings in Fulton County, Georgia, upon a probate of the will of the deceased in solemn form, all parties interested in the succession, either under the will, or as in a case of intestacy, having been cited to appear, on the theory that the deceased was domiciled in Georgia. The Surrogate's Court for the County and State of New York, upon the information of Robert Hungerford, surviving husband of the deceased, appointed The New York Trust Company as temporary administrator of the estate of the deceased, on the theory that she was domiciled in the State of New York as a matter of law, that state being the domicile of the husband.

The executors were directed to file a pleading in the nature of a bill of complaint setting forth their claim to the stock in controversy; and the temporary administrator was ordered to file its answer. Later the will was probated in New York, and letters of administration c. t. a. were issued to the New York Trust Company.

It was asserted by the executors in their pleading that, at the time of Mrs. Hungerford's death, she was domiciled in Georgia; moreover, in any event, the matter was res judicata by reason of the litigation of the matter in the courts of the State of Georgia and the decisions of those courts holding that the deceased was domiciled in that state.

The answer of the administrator alleged that, at the time of her death, Mrs. Hungerford was, in fact and in law, domiciled in the State of New York; that no other state had the right to appoint a general domiciliary representative of her estate; and that the State of New York asserted a claim for inheritance taxes against the estate of the deceased.

By the decedent's will the surviving husband was bequeathed the sum of $ 5,000 and certain jewelry that he had given his wife. The remainder of the estate was devised and bequeathed to the mother and sister of the deceased.

Under the Georgia law, a husband, by renouncing a will, does not obtain any larger share of his deceased wife's estate; but in New York, the husband may renounce, and then would be entitled to claim the one-half part of the personal estate.

The case was heard by the Chancellor on oral testimony, stipulations of counsel, depositions and exhibits. He concluded that Mrs. Hungerford, at the time of her death, was legally domiciled in Fulton County, Georgia; that the executors named in the will of the deceased were entitled to certificates for the shares of stock in controversy; and that, having so found, it was unnecessary to consider whether the question of domicile was res judicata.

Julia Murphy was born in Atlanta, Georgia, and lived there all her life. She first married Mr. Whitehead, who built a handsome home on West Paces Ferry Road in that city. They were divorced, and in the property settlement Mrs. Whitehead acquired the home. She was, as it seems, a wealthy woman in her own right.

Robert Hungerford was born in Watertown, New York. After finishing school he went to New York and was employed by the National City Bank. Later he went into the business of manufacturing tile, a business controlled by his mother. He served in the army for about eighteen months. In 1931 or 1932 the tile business became so reduced that it was sold. What Mr. Hungerford's source of income was thereafter does not appear. He was interested in the stock market, and was in debt. He lived a bachelor's life in New York at hotels or in apartments, and at the time of his marriage to Mrs. Whitehead occupied rooms or an apartment at the Sherry-Netherlands Hotel in New York on a monthly basis, giving it up at his marriage.

Mr. Hungerford had known Julia Murphy as a young girl at Palm Beach, Florida. He met her when she was Mrs. Whitehead at Palm Beach, Hot Springs, Virginia, and in New York. In May, 1932, subsequent to her divorce, he met her again in New York, and there saw her frequently. They were invited to a house party at Cambridge, Maryland, and while there on June 12, 1932, they were married.

The appellees contend that a great variety of facts and circumstances show that Mr. Hungerford soon after the marriage, intended to make Atlanta his home, and that almost immediately after the honeymoon he actually made, and continued to make, that city his home.

The record is lengthy. A good deal of the testimony is not of great importance. The necessity for keeping the opinion within reasonable bounds forbids comment on all of the testimony; and in the main, comment will be limited to the facts and circumstances selected by the parties as most important in establishing their respective theses.

After the marriage Mr. and Mrs. Hungerford went to New York. There they stayed at the Fairfax Hotel where Mrs. Hungerford had been staying prior to her visit in Cambridge, and not at the Sherry-Netherlands Hotel which had been the home of Mr. Hungerford. It is said that Mr. Hungerford, upon the surrender of his apartment had no fixed place in New York which he could call his home. That may be conceded. But thousands of people, in large cities in general, and particularly in the city of New York, live their lives in boarding houses, rooming houses, hotels or apartment houses, changing them from time to time, and giving up their quarters entirely if contemplating a protracted absence from the city, knowing that adequate living quarters in the city will always be available. Especially is this true of one who lives a bachelor's existence. The fact is a circumstance to be considered, but it is not inconsistent with domicile in the city of New York. Brafman v. Brafman, 144 Md. 413, 125 A. 161; In re Craignish [1892] 3 Ch. 180. Nor is it of especial importance that the married pair went to the wife's hotel in New York instead of to that of the husband. A bachelor's quarters in a hotel is not necessarily to be considered as an adequate or fit place for a newly married couple especially in a case where the spouse is a woman of wealth.

Before going to Europe as had been planned, Mr. and Mrs. Hungerford, after staying in New York a few days and later going to Atlantic City and Virginia Beach, went to Atlanta. They sailed for Europe on July 9. There they visited Mrs. Gatkins, a cousin of Mrs. Hungerford. Mrs. Gatkins, testified, speaking of the Hungerfords and the Atlanta home of Mrs. Hungerford, that "They always talked of the place," and that on several occasions both Mr. and Mrs. Hungerford urged Mrs. Gatkins to send her son to visit them in Atlanta. This evidence is offered as showing that Mr. Hungerford had made and intended to make Atlanta his home. While admissible for the purpose perhaps, the significance of the evidence is not impressive. The expression, "they always talked about the place," is vague. Invitations, fixing no specific time for visit, are usually regarded as merely politic, not intended to be accepted. No obligation is incurred.

Before going to Europe Mr. and Mrs. Hungerford registered at hotels as being from New York. After their return, in their flittings from place to place, they invariably registered at hotels and clubs as from 509 West Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta Georgia, the home of Mrs. Hungerford. A great deal of space in the record is devoted to this sort of evidence, and apparently the executors went to great expense to collect the proof. There was no denial of the fact, but a very reasonable explanation was offered. Mr. Hungerford testified that, as he and his wife contemplated traveling a great deal, a mailing address was necessary. He suggested the Sherry-Netherlands Hotel, but Mrs. Hungerford objected on the ground that this would necessitate notification to banks, corporations and many people, and suggested her Atlanta home as being more convenient. Mr. Hungerford was a...