George Blinn v. George Ella Nelson

• Decision Date: 23 October 1911
• Docket Number: No. 5,5
• Citation: 222 U.S. 1,56 L.Ed. 65,32 S.Ct. 1
• Parties: GEORGE R. BLINN, Receiver of the Property of Mabel Allen, Otherwise Known as Mabel E. Allen, an Absentee, Plff. in Err., v. GEORGE ELLA NELSON, Robert J. Fisher, Emma E. Thomas, et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

222 U.S. 1

32 S.Ct. 1

56 L.Ed. 65

GEORGE R. BLINN, Receiver of the Property of Mabel Allen, Otherwise Known as Mabel E. Allen, an Absentee, Plff. in Err.,

v GEORGE ELLA NELSON, Robert J. Fisher, Emma E. Thomas, et al.

No. 5.

Argued April 10, 1911.

Decided October 23, 1911.

Mr. George R. Blinn for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 1-3 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Amos L. Taylor and Hollis R. Bailey for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 3-5 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a petition by the next of kin of an absentee for the distribution of her property in the hands of the receiver; the appointment of the receiver, the taking of the property into his hands, and the present petition all being under Massachusetts Revised Laws, chap. 144, and amendments to the same. The general scheme of the law is that, in case of a person disappearing from Massachusetts to parts unknown, leaving no known agent in the state, but having an interest in property there, anyone who would be entitled to administration may apply to the probate court for the appointment of a receiver. After due notice, a warrant to the sheriff to take possession of the property, and his return, a receiver may be appointed of the property scheduled in the sheriff's return, and the court is to find and record the date of the disappearance. By § 10, if the absentee does not appear and claim the property within fourteen years after the recorded date, his title is barred; and by § 11, if, after the fourteen years, the property has not been accounted for or paid over, it is to be distributed to those who would have taken it on the day fourteen years after the said date. By § 12, if the receiver is not appointed within thirteen years after said date, the time for distribution and for barring actions relative to the property shall be one year after the date of the appointment, instead of the fourteen years provided in §§ 11, 12.

On July 20, 1905, the plaintiff in error was appointed receiver of the property of Mabel E. Allen, and the date of the disappearance of the latter was found and recorded as 'within or prior to the year 1892.' The present petition was filed on March 18, 1907. The property in question was an interest of the absentee under the residuary clause of the will of Jonathan Merry, allowed and proved on December 8, 1828. Long after the estate was settled, an administrator de bonis non was appointed in 1885, and in or about 1899 collected on account of French spoliation claims a sum in which Mabel Allen's share was $1,633 and $22. This, with accumulations from interest, is the fund in controversy. The probate court made a decree of distribution, which was affirmed by the supreme judicial court of the commonwealth. 197 Mass. 279, 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 651, 125 Am. St. Rep. 364, 83 N. E. 889, 14 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 147. The receiver, having duly set up that the above-mentioned §§ 10, 11, and 12 were contrary to the 14th Amendment, brought the case to this court.

The plaintiff in error does not deny that the provisions for the appointment of a receiver are valid. Cunnius v. Reading School Dist. 198 U. S. 458, 49 L. ed. 1125, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721, 3 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1121....