Crohn v. Clay County State Bank

• Decision Date: 29 March 1909
• Citation: 137 Mo. App. 712,118 S.W. 498
• Parties: CROHN v. CLAY COUNTY STATE BANK.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

118 S.W. 498

137 Mo. App. 712

CROHN v. CLAY COUNTY STATE BANK.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 29, 1909.

On Rehearing, April 19, 1909.

1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 43)— ASSETS—PERSONALTY.

The title to personalty at the owner's death vests in the administrator.

2. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 519)— FOREIGN DOMICILIARY ADMINISTRATOR—TITLE TO PERSONALTY.

A foreign domiciliary administrator is without title to the personalty of intestate in the state.

3. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 519)— FOREIGN DOMICILIARY ADMINISTRATOR— RIGHT TO COLLECT DEBT.

A debtor paying the debt to the foreign domiciliary administrator of his creditor will not be protected as against the resident administrator

on the ground that the money has gone where it must in the end go, as such foreign administrator is wholly without authority or title to receive payment.

4. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 519)— FOREIGN DOMICILIARY ADMINISTRATOR— RIGHT TO COLLECT DEBT.

A debtor paying the debt to the foreign domiciliary administrator of his creditor will not be protected as against the resident administrator on the ground that the latter is a trustee for the heirs and the foreign administrator, for the resident creditors have a superior right to heirs.

5. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 519)— FOREIGN DOMICILIARY ADMINISTRATOR—AUTHORITY TO COLLECT DEBTS.

The payment of a debt to the foreign domiciliary administrator of the creditor is no defense as against the resident administrator, notwithstanding the payment was made before the latter's appointment, for such foreign administrator is wholly without authority or title to receive payment.

On Motion for Rehearing.

6. COURTS (§ 92)—OPINIONS—DICTA.

Inference from remarks of the Court of Appeals outside the point of decision should not be drawn against express decisions of the Supreme Court.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; Francis H. Trimble, Judge.

Action by R. S. Crohn, public administrator, against the Clay County State Bank. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Craven & Moore, for appellant. Clyde Taylor and W. E. Fowler, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff is the public administrator of Jackson county, in charge of the estate of William H. Lowe, deceased. He brought this action to recover a deposit of $1,500 left by deceased with the defendant, a banking institution in a county adjoining Jackson. The judgment in the trial court was for the plaintiff. It appears that Lowe resided in the state of Iowa, and that he died in the state of Kansas in November, 1906, leaving also a deposit of $1,000 in a bank in Jackson county. In that month letters of administration were granted on his estate in his home county in Iowa to C. W. Huff, who duly qualified. In December, 1906, the defendant bank paid to Huff the amount of the deposit, and took his receipt as such administrator. Afterwards, in the same month, plaintiff, as public administrator, was put in charge of the estate by the probate court of Jackson county, Mo., for the purpose of administering thereon. He collected the deposit in Jackson county and then demanded that left with defendant, but the latter, having already paid it to the home administrator in Iowa, refused payment, and this action followed.

It is thus readily seen that the question involves the title of a foreign domiciliary administrator to personal effects of the deceased in a foreign state, and his right to collect debts owing to the deceased by debtors in such state. It is a familiar rule of law that title to personalty at the death of the owner vests in the administrator. But here the controversy to the property is between two administrators appointed in different jurisdictions and under the authority of different sovereignties. The title and authority of the Iowa administrator in property of a deceased, who resided in that state is governed by the laws of that state, which are without force in Missouri. The property in controversy was in the latter state, and, while it cannot be appropriated from the true or real owners, yet it is under the jurisdiction of the latter state, and can only be withdrawn therefrom in pursuance of Missouri laws. This rule is justified by the duty which a state owes its own citizens who may be creditors, as well as to itself in the way of taxation. Therefore, a creditor of a deceased who was a nonresident is given the right to ask an administration of property which may be found in this state....