Baldwin v. Rice

• Decision Date: 21 November 1905
• Citation: 75 N.E. 1096,183 N.Y. 55
• Parties: BALDWIN et al. v. RICE et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

183 N.Y. 55

75 N.E. 1096

BALDWIN et al.

v.RICE et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 21, 1905.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by Adele Baldwin and others, as administrators of the estate of Elizabeth B. Rice, deceased, against William M. Rice, Jr., and others, as executors of William M. Rice, deceased. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (100 App. Div. 241,91 N. Y. Supp. 1086), modifying and affirming a judgment in favor of defendants (89 N. Y. Supp. 738), plaintiffs appeal, and from the modification of the judgment defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First judicial department, entered February 3, 1905, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term by striking therefrom the words ‘on the merits.’ The defendants appeal from the modification, and to this extent only there are cross-appeals. This action was brought by the plaintiffs, claiming, by appointment of the surrogate of the county of New York, to be administrators with the will annexed of Elizabeth B. Rice, against the executors of her deceased husband. The plaintiffs claim that at the time of the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Rice they were residents of Texas; that by virtue of the ‘community law’ of that state, which, according to the plaintiffs' construction, undertook in effect to constitute the husband and wife partners with respect to property acquired by either during marriage; that by her will the wife bequeathed, among others, certain legacies aggregating $235,000; that the husband, who survived the wife, had, at the time of her death and at the time of his death, community property of the value of $6,000,000 and upwards, which was then in the custody of the Surrogate's Court of New York county pending the settlement and distribution of the estate; and that all legatees of the wife, except those claiming the legacies of $235,000 had settled their claims against the husband's estate. The complaint prays judgment for the said sum of $235,000 with interest.

The material facts are as follows: Mr. and Mrs. Rice were married at Houston, in the state of Texas, in June, 1867. Mrs. Rice died in Wisconsin in July, 1896. Mr. Rice died in the city of New York September 23, 1900. Mrs. Rice left a last will and testament, in which she made bequests aggregating about $1,945,000. She named Oran T. Holt, of Houston, Tex., as her executor. This will was admitted to probate in Texas in March, 1897, and letters testamentary issued to the executor, began a suit against William M. executor, began a suit against William M. Rice, the husband, in which he sought to recover the wife's share of the community property. William M. Rice began suit against Holt, as executor of Elizabeth B. Rice, in which he sought to have it adjudged that the claims of Holt as such executor to a community interest in the property constituted a cloud upon his title and were wholly without foundation and void. Each of these suits was pending and undetermined at the time William M. Rice died in the city of New York on September 23, 1900. Testimony had been taken in both of these suits, but neither had been tried at the time of Rice's death. William M. Rice left a last will and testament, which, after prolonged litigation, was admitted to probate, and the defendants received letters testamentary thereunder in the Surrogate's Court of the county of New York. Horace B. Rice received permanent letters of administration from the county court of Harris county, Tex., as administrator of William M. Rice in the state of Texas. In February, 1902, Holt, as executor of Elizabeth B. Rice, and Horace B. Rice, as the Texas executor of William M. Rice, entered into an agreement of settlement and compromise. The details of this agreement are not important on this appeal, except to say that all the persons in interest were settled with, save the seven legatees whom the plaintiffs claim to represent.John Brooks Leavitt, Jared F. Harrison, and Arthur B. Turnure, for appellants.

John Byrnes and Charles A. Boston, for respondents.

BARTLETT, J. (after stating the facts).

After proceedings in the Surrogate's Court of the county of New York, the validity and effect of which are involved in this action, letters of administration with the will annexed were issued to the present plaintiffs by the Surrogate's Court of New York county on January 30, 1903. This action was begun February 3, 1903. Thereafter, and pursuant to the provisions of the compromise agreement, in the case of Rice v. Holt in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Texas, hereinbefore referred to, proceeded to judgment adverse to Holt. The defendants interposed two separate defenses, to wit, that the Surrogate's Court of New York county had no jurisdiction to issue the letters of administration under which the plaintiffs claim to act; that the decree in the action of Rice v. Holt in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Texas is a bar to this action. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Scott at Special Term. After the record of plaintiffs' appointment and the record of the Texas judgment in Rice v. Holt had been admitted in evidence, the court interrupted the progress of the trial, suspended the taking of further evidence, and expressed a desire to hear argument on the two questions raised by the defendants. Arguments and briefs were submitted, and after due consideration the court decided that the plaintiffs were without legal capacity to sue, and that the said Texas decree in Rice v. Holt was an ‘impregnable bar’ to this action. The complaint was thereupon dismissed on the merits. On appeal, the Appellate Division handed down a memorandum as follows: ‘The judgment should be affirmed on so much of the opinion of the court below as holds that the...