Sadler v. Mitchell

Decision Date04 April 1931
Citation36 S.W.2d 891
PartiesSADLER et al. v. MITCHELL et al.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Certiorari to Court of Appeals, on Appeal from Chancery Court, Davidson County; R. B. C. Howell, Chancellor.

Suit by John T. Sadler and others against Eura Mitchell, administratrix of the estate of Mrs. Clarke Jones, deceased, and others. A decree dismissing the bill as against defendant administratrix, but declaring who are the distributees of the estate, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and she brings error.

Reversed, bill dismissed as to defendant administratrix, and cause remanded, with permission to amend by making additional parties defendant.

Shriver & Shriver, of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

E. J. Walsh, of Nashville, for defendants in error.

GREEN, C. J.

This suit was brought by certain parties claiming to be distributees of the estate of Mrs. Clarke Jones, deceased, against Eura Mitchell, who had qualified as administratrix of said estate in New York, and against other parties alleged to be distributees of the estate of Mrs. Clarke Jones. The bill prayed, generally speaking, for an accounting by said administratrix, and that she be required to pay the funds in her hands into the chancery court of Davidson county. The chancellor dismissed the bill in so far as it sought an accounting or other relief against the New York administratrix, but made a declaration in the cause as to who were the distributees of the estate of Mrs. Clarke Jones. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree of the chancellor.

Eura Mitchell, administratrix, filed a petition for certiorari, which was granted, and the case has been heard in this court. The complainants have abandoned other relief, originally sought, and the only question here presented is the propriety of a declaration in this case as to the identity of the distributees of the intestate.

It seems that Mrs. Clarke Jones had certain interests in the state of New York upon which several thousand dollars have been realized. Eura Mitchell qualified as administratrix under the laws of that state, and the money is in her hands. Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Mitchell were both residents of Tennessee.

It is conceded on the brief of counsel for complainants that the Tennessee courts will not, under our decisions, grant such relief as was originally sought herein against the personal representative of a decedent, qualified and acting under the laws of another state. It is insisted, however, that the declaration made is proper, and will be of assistance to all parties, if not conclusive, in the distribution of this estate in New York.

We think, however, no such declaration can be made in this case; if for no other reason, for lack of proper parties.

The Declaratory Judgments Act, chapter 29 of the Pub. Acts of 1923, authorizes "courts of record within their respective jurisdictions" to make certain declarations which "shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree." Our courts are especially authorized under the statute "to ascertain any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, next of kin, or others." Section 4, subsection (a).

Section 11, however, provides "that when declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parti...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Beatty v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 10 December 1935
    ...34; Faulkner v. City, (N. H.) 155 A. 95; Ladner v. Siegel, (Penn.) 144 A. 274; Joplin Co. v. County, (Mo.) 38 S.W.2d 1068; Sadler v. Mitchell, (Tenn.) 36 S.W.2d 891. telegraphers on the Casper division were necessary parties and should have been joined as plaintiffs. The purpose and scope o......
  • State ex rel. Maloney v. Sierra
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 23 November 1970
    ...of Wyandotte County, 128 Kan. 516, 279 P. 1; Harrell v. American Home Mortgage Co., 161 Tenn. 646, 32 S.W.2d 1023; Sadler v. Mitchell, 162 Tenn. 363, 367, 36 S.W.2d 891; Miller v. Miller, 149 Tenn. 463, 261 S.W. 965.' 264 N.W. at 629, 103 A.L.R. at See also United States v. West Virginia, 2......
  • Caroline St. Permanent Bldg. Ass'n No. I of Baltimore City v. Sohn, 45.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 12 June 1940
    ...9, pp. 282-3; Reese v. Adamson, 297 Pa. 13, 146 A. 262; In re Pittsburgh's City Charter, 297 Pa. 502, 147 A. 525; Sadler v. Mitchell, 162 Tenn. 363, 36 S.W.2d 891, 892; Nashville, etc., Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249, 260, 261, 53 S.Ct. 345, 77 L.Ed. 730, 87 A.L.R. 1191. See 12 A.L.R. 67; 19......
  • Coleman v. Henry
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • 3 May 1947
    ......Harrell v. American Home Mortg. Co., 161 Tenn. 646, 32 S.W.2d 1023; Sadler v. Mitchell, 162 Tenn. 363, 36 S.W.2d 891.         (3). Obviously, any declaration favorable to complainant and unfavorable to defendant, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT