O'CONNOR v. Slaker
Decision Date | 10 October 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 7767.,7767. |
Citation | 22 F.2d 147 |
Parties | O'CONNOR et al. v. SLAKER et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James M. Johnson, of Kansas City, Mo., Bernard McNeny, of Red Cloud, Neb., and Donald W. Johnson, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.
P. E. Boslaugh, of Hastings, Neb., O. S. Spillman, of Pierce, Neb., and George Ayres, of Lincoln, Neb., on the brief), for appellee State of Nebraska.
John A. Lawler, of Hastings, Neb., for appellee Slaker.
Before KENYON, Circuit Judge, and MOLYNEAUX and JOHN B. SANBORN, District Judges.
This is an appeal from an order and judgment of the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska dismissing upon motion a petition of appellants. The petition is in three counts. In the first appellants claim they are entitled to the estate of John O'Connor, deceased, by virtue of a will bequeathing the same to one Charles O'Connor and in case of his death to his heirs; that he died intestate and that they are his heirs at law; that appellee John Slaker is administrator de bonis non of said estate, and is in possession of all the property of the same, including the real property described in the petition; that said will was contested, and it was held by the Supreme Court of Nebraska (105 Neb. 88, 179 N. W. 401, 12 A. L. R. 199) to be a forgery; that James B. O'Connor, one of the appellants, was tried and convicted in the district court of Adams county, Nebraska, for the alleged forgery, which judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska (110 Neb. 822, 95 N. W. 125); said court stating that the evidence showed the will to be the last will of John O'Connor.
It is asked that the will be adjudged the last will and testament of said John O'Connor, and that plaintiffs be decreed to be the sole devisees and legatees under the same.
The second count is not predicated on any will, but on the alleged fact that plaintiffs are the sole and only heirs at law of the said John O'Connor, deceased, and therefore entitled to inherit his property.
The third count asks that title be quieted, as against the administrator and the state of Nebraska, to the real estate left by the said John O'Connor, and that title thereto be adjudged and confirmed in appellants, as the sole heirs of the said John O'Connor, deceased. The only relief asked as to the state of Nebraska is set forth in the third count.
The court sustained the motion to dismiss the bill on the ground that sole jurisdiction over the causes of action was in the state courts.
It is the claim of appellees that the county court of Nebraska has exclusive original jurisdiction in matters of probate and administration, and that the right to determine the heirs of a deceased person is vested solely in that court; that matters of the character presented by appellants are not within the ordinary equity jurisdiction of the federal courts.
The relief asked in count 1 is in effect the probate of an alleged will which had been adjudicated in the state court to be a forgery. This cannot be done in the federal court. Matters purely of a probate character, which includes, of course, proceedings to probate wills, are not within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
The Supreme Court of the United States has spoken clearly on this subject. In Ellis et al. v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485, 497, 3 S. Ct. 327, 334 (27 L. Ed. 1006), the court said: "The original probate, of course, is mere matter of state regulation, and depends entirely upon the local law; for it is that law which confers the power of making wills, and prescribes the conditions upon which alone they may take effect; and as, by the law in almost all the states, no instrument can be effective as a will until proved, no rights in relation to it, capable of being contested between parties, can arise until preliminary probate has been first made." In Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 110, 25 S. Ct. 727, 734 (50 L. Ed. 101), it was said: "As the authority to make wills is derived from the state, and the requirement of probate is but a regulation to make a will effective, matters of pure probate, in the strict sense of the words, are not within the jurisdiction of courts of the United States."
In Sutton v. English, 246 U. S. 199, 38 S. Ct. 254, 62 L. Ed. 664, it was held that a suit which was in the nature of one to annul a will, and which under the state law is merely supplemental to proceedings for probate, and cognizable only by the probate court, is not within the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States. We quote (page 205 38 S. Ct. 256) therefrom: "By a series of decisions in this court it has been established that since it does not pertain to the general jurisdiction of a court of equity to set aside a will or the probate thereof, or to administer upon the estates of decedents in rem, matters of this character are not within the ordinary equity jurisdiction of the federal courts; that as the authority to make wills is derived from the states, and the requirement of probate is but a regulation to make a will effective, matters of strict probate are not within the jurisdiction of courts of the United States; that where a state, by statute or custom, gives to parties interested the right to bring an action or suit inter partes, either at law or in equity, to annul a will or to set aside the probate, the courts of the United States, where diversity of citizenship and a sufficient amount in controversy appear, can enforce the same remedy, but that this relates only to independent suits, and not to procedure merely incidental or ancillary to the probate; and, further, that questions relating to the interests of heirs, devisees, or legatees, or trusts affecting such interests, which may be determined without interfering with probate or assuming general administration, are within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, where diversity of citizenship exists and the requisite amount is in controversy."
See, also, 21 Corpus Juris, p. 121; 25 Corpus Juris, p. 695.
The action of the court as to count 1 was correct.
The question presented as to count 2 is entirely different. It is there assumed that no will was made by John O'Connor, and it is asked that appellants be adjudicated his heirs at law and their share in the estate be determined. The right to have such question determined in the federal court (requisite diversity of citizenship existing and the required amount being in controversy) has been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Nor can such right be destroyed by any action of a state. It is a creation of the Constitution of the United States. In Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 620, 13 S. Ct. 906, 910 (37 L. Ed. 867), it is said:
In the leading case of Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co., 215 U. S. 33, 43, 30 S. Ct. 10, 54 L. Ed. 80, the court discusses various cases coming before the courts of the United States for the purpose of determining the rights of persons claiming an interest in estates, and considers to what extent the jurisdiction in equity of the courts of the United States may be affected by state statutes, and says (page 43 30 S. Ct. 12):
The court points out that the United States courts, while they may make decrees binding upon the parties, cannot seize and control the property if it is in the hands of a state court, and referring to Farrell v. O'Brien, supra, says (page 44 30 S. Ct. 13):
In McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 30 S. Ct. 501, 54 L. Ed. 762, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Koehler
...in federal court. Ford Motor Co. v. Dep't of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 467, 65 S.Ct. 347, 352, 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945); O'Connor v. Slaker, 22 F.2d 147, 152 (8th Cir.1927); Midland Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 200 B.R. at 458. In this case, however, the Attorney General did more than simply make......
-
Ford Motor Co v. Department of Treasury of State of Indiana
...Oil & Irrigation Co. v. State of California, 9 Cir., 202 F. 498; Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Guernsey, D.C., 205 F. 91; O'Connor v. Slaker, 8 Cir., 22 F.2d 147; Dunnuck v. Kansas State Highway Commission, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 882. The United States Attorney General has been held to be withou......
-
United States v. Swanson, Civ. No. 70-47.
...v. O'Brien, 199 U.S. 89, 110, 25 S.Ct. 727, 50 L.Ed. 101; Sutton v. English, 246 U.S. 199, 205, 38 S.Ct. 254, 62 L.Ed. 664; O'Connor v. Slaker, 8 Cir., 22 F.2d 147; In re McDonald's Estate, D.C.Minn., 42 F.2d 266. However, the instant case is within the rule of Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 49......
-
Howard v. Cook
... ... 252, 50 L.Ed. 477; Mehlin v. Ice, 56 F. 12; Hans ... v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842; ... O'Connor v. Slaker, (C. C. A. 8th) 22 F.2d 147, ... 152; Farish v. State Banking Board, 235 U.S. 498, 35 ... S.Ct. 185, 59 L.Ed. 330; Utah Const. Co. v. State Highway ... ...
-
Neb. Const. art. V § V-22 State May Sue and Be Sued
...60 Neb. 300, 83 N.W. 87 (1900). Constitutional provision that state may sue and be sued is not self-executing. O'Connor v. Slaker, 22 F.2d 147 (8th Cir. 2. Suit against state This provision is not self-executing, but instead requires legislative action for waiver of the State's sovereign im......