Dow v. Lillie
| Decision Date | 08 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | 81912 |
| Citation | 144 N.W. 1082,26 N.D. 512 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal by petitioners from an order of the District Court of Bottineau County, Burr, J., confirming an order of the County Court of said county denying a petition filed by the administrator in and under the direction of the court of the principal administration in the state of Iowa and in an ancillary administration in said County Court of Battineau County, North Dakota, asking for the sale of real estate in North Dakota, and the transmission of the proceeds thereof for the payment of debts proved and allowed in said principal administration.
Reversed and remanded.
Engerud Holt, & Frame, for appellants.
Claimants had two concurrent remedies. They could prove their claims in the Iowa court, or could proceed to do so in the North Dakota court, or in both courts. Their claims having been proved in the Iowa court, they were entitled to have them paid out of decedent's estate wherever located. Rev. Codes 1905 §§ 8225 to 8228; Cowden v. Jacobson, 165 Mass. 240, 43 N.E. 98; Miner v. Austin, 45 Iowa 221 24 Am. Rep. 763; Lawrence v. Elmendorf, 5 Barb. 73; Re Gable, 79 Iowa 178, 9 L.R.A. 218, 44 N.W. 352.
The right of claimant to participate in the assets of the estate in North Dakota is not res judicata. Chambers v Chambers, 38 Ore. 131, 62 P. 1013; Willis v Marks, 29 Ore. 493, 45 P. 293; Preston v. Knapp, 85 Cal. 559, 24 P. 811; Cowden v. Jacobson, 165 Mass. 240, 43 N.E. 98; Wilson v. Hartford F. Ins. Co. 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 553, 90 C. C. A. 593, 164 F. 817; Miner v. Austin, 45 Iowa 221, 24 Am. Rep. 763; Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 8225 to 8228.
The property in North Dakota should be sold and the proceeds sent to the Iowa court. Re Gable, 79 Iowa 178, 9 L.R.A. 218, 44 N.W. 352; Pisano v. B. M. & J. F. Shanley Co. 66 N.J.L. 1, 48 A. 618; Lewis v. Grognard, 17 N.J.Eq. 425; Pratt v. Douglas, 38 N.J.Eq. 516; Childress v. Bennett, 10 Ala. 751, 44 Am. Dec. 503.
The function of ancillary proceedings is to gather in the assets of the estate within its jurisdiction, pay local claims, and transmit the balance to the domiciliary estate. First Nat. Bank v. Warner, 17 N.D. 81, 114 N.W. 1085, 17 Ann. Cas. 213; St. John v. Lofland, 5 N.D. 143, 63 N.W. 930; Palmeteer v. Tilton, 40 N.J.Eq. 555, 5 A. 105; Lobdell v. Lobdell, 36 N.Y. 333.
When the reason for a rule does not exist or enter into the controversy, the rule itself ceases to operate or govern. Cardiff v. Marquis, 17 N.D. 110, 114 N.W. 1088; McCartin v. Traphagen, 43 N.J.Eq. 323, 11 A. 156; Dolan v. Dolan, 89 Ala. 256, 7 So. 425; Kroh v. Heins, 48 Neb. 691, 67 N.W. 771; Kempton v. Bartine, 59 N.J.Eq. 149, 44 A. 461; Pyle v. Pyle, 158 Ill. 289, 41 N.E. 999; Wright v. Jackson, 59 Wis. 569, 18 N.W. 486; Dick v. Williams, 130 Pa. 41, 18 A. 615; Messimer v. McCrary, 113 Mo. 382, 21 S.W. 17; Magemau v. Bell, 13 Neb. 247, 13 N.W. 277; Glover v. Gentry, 104 Ala. 222, 16 So. 38; Harpending v. Daniel, 80 Ky. 449.
Whether the administration be a principal or auxiliary one, the rights of the parties remain the same. Fretwell v. McLemore, 52 Ala. 134; Wright v. Phillips, 56 Ala. 82; Hamilton v. Levy, 41 S.C. 374, 19 S.E. 612; Dawes v. Head, 3 Pick. 128.
A decedent's property becomes a trust fund for the payment of his debts wherever they exist. The location of such debts creates no preference rights. Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 5187, 8093, 8096, 8225-8228, 8134; Wright v. Phillips, 56 Ala. 69; Miner v. Austin, 45 Iowa 221, 24 Am. Rep. 763; Lawrence v. Elmendorf, 5 Barb. 73; Goodall v. Marshall, 11 N.H. 95, 35 Am. Dec. 472; Hamilton v. Levy, 41 S.C. 374, 19 S.E. 612.
The discretion mentioned in § 8225 of our Code means a legal discretion, and does not confer authority upon the court to act arbitrarily. Dawes v. Head, 3 Pick. 145.
The rules of comity between states and courts should be adopted and followed, whenever they are not in conflict with the true intent and spirit of statute law, in order that justice may be done. Re Gable, 79 Iowa 178, 9 L.R.A. 218, 44 N.W. 352; Davis v. Estey, 8 Pick. 475; Dawes v. Head, 3 Pick. 128; Fay v. Haven, 3 Met. 109; Dawes v. Boylston, 9 Mass. 337, 6 Am. Dec. 72; Jennison v. Hapgood, 10 Pick. 77; Stevens v. Gaylord, 11 Mass. 256; Probate Ct. v. Kimball, 42 Vt. 320; Miller's Estate, 3 Rawle, 312, 24 Am. Dec. 345; Goodall v. Marshall, 11 N.H. 88, 35 Am. Dec. 472; Barry's Appeal, 88 Pa. 131; Young v. Wittenmyrer, 123 Ill. 303, 14 N.E. 869; Gravillon v. Richards, 13 La. 293, 33 Am. Dec. 563; Gaines's Succession, 46 La.Ann. 252, 49 Am. St. Rep. 324, 14 So. 602; Williams v. Williams, 5 Md. 467; Wright v. Gilbert, 51 Md. 146; Parsons v. Lyman, 20 N.Y. 103; Despard v. Churchill, 53 N.Y. 192; Hamilton v. Levy, 41 S.C. 374, 19 S.E. 612; Wright v. Phillips, 56 Ala. 82; Fretwell v. McLemore, 52 Ala. 134; Childress v. Bennett, 10 Ala. 751, 44 Am. Dec. 503; Lawrence v. Elmendorf, 5 Barb. 73; Cummings v. Banks, 2 Barb. 602; Lewis v. Adams, Cal. , 8 P. 619; Apple's Estate, 66 Cal. 432, 6 P. 7; Miner v. Austin, 45 Iowa 221, 24 Am. Rep. 763; McCully v. Cooper, 114 Cal. 258, 35 L.R.A. 492, 55 Am. St. Rep. 66, 46 P. 83; Greenwalt v. Bastian, 10 Kan.App. 101, 61 P. 513; Doss v. Stevens, 13 Colo.App. 535, 59 P. 67; Shegogg v. Perkins, 34 Ark. 117; Mitchell v. Cox, 28 Ga. 32; Spraddling v. Pipkin, 15 Mo. 118; Joy v. Elton, 9 N.D. 444, 83 N.W. 875.
The administrators in Iowa were the proper parties to bring these proceedings. State ex rel. Security Trust Co. v. Probate Ct. 67 Minn. 51, 69 N.W. 609, 908; Strauss v. Phillips, 189 Ill. 9, 59 N.E. 560; Moore v. Luther, 153 Mich. 206, 18 L.R.A.(N.S.) 149, 126 Am. St. Rep. 479, 116 N.W. 986, 117 N.W. 932; Wilson v. Hartford F. Ins. Co. 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 553, 90 C. C. A. 593, 164 F. 817; Fields v. Mundy, 106 Wis. 383, 80 Am. St. Rep. 39, 82 N.W. 343.
Noble, Blood, & Adamson, for respondent.
The so-called order from which this appeal is taken is not an appealable order. It is merely one of the conclusions of law reached by the trial court. Re Weber, 4 N.D. 119, 28 L.R.A. 621, 59 N.W. 523; Prondzinski v. Garbutt, 9 N.D. 244, 83 N.W. 23; Field v. Great Western Elevator Co. 5 N.D. 400, 67 N.W. 147; Re Peterson, 22 N.D. 480, 134 N.W. 752.
The debts of a decedent cannot be made a charge against the property until the conditions of the statute have been fully met. N.D. Rev. Codes, §§ 8093, 8097, 8099, 8103, 8105, 8108.
Where action is brought on a rejected claim after three months, its rejection by the administrator can be pleaded in bar, because the limitation had run. Boyd v. VonNeida, 9 N.D. 337, 83 N.W. 329; Farwell v. Richardson, 10 N.D. 36, 84 N.W. 558; Mann v. Redmon, 23 N.D. 508, 137 N.W. 478.
Before a claimant can be exempted from the operation of the statute, he must show that he is excepted by its terms. Roaf v. Knight, 77 Iowa 506, 42 N.W. 433; Morgan v. Hamlet, 113 U.S. 449, 28 L.Ed. 1043, 5 S.Ct. 583; Crenshaw v. Carpenter, 69 Ala. 572, 44 Am. Rep. 539; Van Steenwyck v. Washburn, 59 Wis. 483, 48 Am. Rep. 532, 17 N.W. 289; Barry v. Minehan, 127 Wis. 570, 107 N.W. 488; Winter v. Winter, 101 Wis. 494, 77 N.W. 883.
The administration and distribution of the real property in question are governed by the laws of North Dakota, where said property is located. Wilson v. Hartford F. Ins. Co. 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 553, 90 C. C. A. 593, 164 F. 817; Fields v. Mundy, 106 Wis. 383, 80 Am. St. Rep. 39, 82 N.W. 343.
Claims not filed and treated here as provided by statute cannot be enforced. Winter v. Winter, 101 Wis. 494, 77 N.W. 883; Carpenter v. Murphey, 57 Wis. 541, 15 N.W. 798; Austin v. Saveland, 77 Wis. 108, 45 N.W. 955; Eingartner v. Illinois Steel Co. 103 Wis. 373, 74 Am. St. Rep. 871, 79 N.W. 433.
The local administrator acts wholly under and by the authority of the statutes of this state, and the acts of a foreign court of administration are not binding on him. Stacy v. Thresher, 6 How. 57, 12 L.Ed. 342; McLean v. Meek, 18 How. 16, 15 L.Ed. 277; Talmage v. Chapel, 16 Mass. 71; McGarvey v. Darnall, 134 Ill. 367, 10 L.R.A. 861, 25 N.E. 1005; Story, Confl. L. § 522; Freeman, Judgm. § 163; Smith v. Goodrich, 167 Ill. 46, 47 N.E. 316; Strauss v. Phillips, 189 Ill. 9, 59 N.E. 560.
Before the county court can order the sale of real estate to pay debts, the validity of the claims must be established. McGowan v. Lufburrow, 82 Ga. 523, 14 Am. St. Rep. 178, 9 S.E. 427; 18 Cyc. 680, and cases there cited; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1081, and cases there cited.
Where petition is made for order for sale of real property to pay debts, it must show the essential facts required by statute, including the fact that the personal estate is insufficient. Hadley v. Gregory, 57 Iowa 157, 10 N.W. 319; 18 Cyc. 1233.
Where such application is made in the ancillary jurisdiction, to pay claims allowed in the domiciliary jurisdiction, the proceedings will be governed by the laws of the domicil where the claims were allowed. 18 Cyc. 1233; McCrary v. Tasker, 41 Iowa 260; Conger v. Cook, 56 Iowa 117, 8 N.W. 782; Hadley v. Gregory, 57 Iowa 157, 10 N.W. 319.
The power of the county courts in these respects is limited by the terms of the statute. No such power existed at common law. Haynes v. Meeks, 20 Cal. 312; Worthy v Johnson, 52 Am. Dec. 399 and note, 8 Ga. 236; Merrill v. Harris, 26 N.H. 142, 57 Am. Dec. 359; Tucker v. Harris, 58 Am. Dec. 488 and note, 13 Ga. 1; Currie v. Stewart, 27 Miss. 52, 61 Am. Dec. 500; Janes v. Throckmorton, 57 Cal. 368; Pettit v. Pettit, 32 Ala. 288; Wyman v. Campbell, 6 Port. (Ala.) 219, 31 Am. Dec. 677; 11 Am. &...
To continue reading
Request your trial