Du Vivier v. Hopkins
| Decision Date | 07 October 1874 |
| Citation | 116 Mass. 125 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles A. Du Vivier & others v. Ann Hopkins, executrix |
Worcester. Appeal under the Gen. Sts. c. 99, § 8, from a decision of the commissioners, appointed by the Probate Court to receive and examine the claims of creditors against the estate of the defendant's testator, disallowing a claim made by the plaintiffs against said estate.
In the Superior Court the plaintiffs, who were citizens of the State of New York, filed a statement of their claim, from which it appeared that the matter in dispute amounted to $ 921.52; and they filed a petition under the U.S. St. of 1867, c. 196, for the removal of the case to the Circuit Court of the United States. Brigham, C. J., refused to grant the petition, and ordered the case to stand for trial. The plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
G. F Verry & F. A. Gaskill, for the plaintiffs. The petitioners are entitled to a removal. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, c 20, § 25, the word "suit," has been held to apply to any proceeding in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues in such court the remedy which the law affords him. Weston v. City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 464. See also Parker v. Overman, 18 How 137. The case of an appeal from commissioners is treated by our statutes and courts exactly like an action brought upon the demand by the creditor against the administrator. Before the Revised Statutes, the law required a writ to be sued out in such cases. St. 1784, c. 2. The Gen. Sts. c. 99, § 8, provide that an appeal from commissioners "shall be determined at common law," and "it shall be tried and determined in like manner as if an action had been brought therefor by the supposed creditor against the executor or administrator;" and by § 10, that "like proceedings shall be thereupon had in the pleadings, trial and determination of the cause, as in an action at law prosecuted in the usual manner." This court has decided that under those sections the proceedings are according to the course of common law. Waters v. Randall, 8 Met. 132. Jacobs v. Jacobs, 110 Mass. 229. In Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642, it is decided that United States courts have jurisdiction of suits by or against executors and administrators, if they are citizens of different states. Although by the Gen. Sts. c. 99, § 10, no execution shall be awarded against the executor or administrator for a debt found due, it does not follow that the state court is the only forum in which the cause can be prosecuted. The United States courts have power to conform their proceedings to the special requirements of the laws of the state in which the cause of action exists, when necessary, and will so conform them. U. S. St. 1789, c. 20, § 34; 1828, c. 68. Mutual Assurance Society v. Watts, 1 Wheat. 279. Paine v. Wright, 6 McLean 395, 398. Our statutes do not require that any notice of the determination of the appeal in the appellate court shall be made to the Probate Court, but provide merely that the final judgment shall be conclusive, and the list of debts allowed by the commissioners shall be altered, if necessary, to conform thereto. Gen. Sts. c. 99, § 10.
M. J. McCafferty, for the defendant, was not called upon.
We have no doubt or hesitation in affirming the order of the Superior Court refusing the petition for the removal of this case into the Circuit Court of the United States, under the act of Congress of 1867, c. 196.
The proceedings in the courts of this Commonwealth were had under the Gen. Sts. c. 99, the material provisions of which are as follows: When the estate of a deceased person is represented to be insolvent, the Probate Court appoints commissioners to receive and examine all claims of creditors against the estate, and return a list of the claims laid before them, with the sum allowed on each claim. §§ 2-4. Any person whose claim is disallowed, and any executor or administrator who is dissatisfied with the allowance of any claim, may appeal from the decision of the commissioners to the Superior Court or this court, according to the amount of the claim. § 8. In the court appealed to, the supposed creditor is to file a written statement of his claim in the nature of a declaration; § 10. A certificate of such judgment, though not specifically provided for, is of course, as in all cases of appeals, transmitted from the appellate court to the probate court. If the assets prove sufficient, the claims allowed against the estate are to be paid in full; if not, a dividend thereon is to be declared by the Probate Court, and paid by the executor or administrator. §§ 17, 22, 23.
The whole proceeding is a proceeding for the settlement of an estate, according to the statutes and in the courts of the Commonwealth. The demand of each creditor is a claim against the estate, and not a suit between parties. Although an appeal from the decision of the commissioners thereon is to be tried and determined in the same manner as an action at common law, the judgment is not to be followed by execution and its utmost effect is to modify the list of claims as returned by the commissioners, and to regulate the settlement of the accounts of the executor or administrator in the Probate Court. In short, the trial of each claim, whether before the commissioners or on appeal, is a mere incident to the settlement of the estate. The very statement of the nature of the proceedings suggests several insuperable objections to allowing the claim of one creditor to be removed into the federal courts for trial and judgment. 1st. The jurisdiction of the state courts over the entire proceedings for the settlement of the estate, having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Sprague
... ... Machine Co. v. Grover & Baker Co. 110 Mass. 70; ... Galpin v. Critchlow, 112 Mass. 339; Gordon v ... Green, 113 Mass. 259; Du Vivier v. Hopkins, 116 ... Mass. 125; N. Y. Co. v. Loomis, 122 Mass. 431; ... Pechner v. Ins. Co. 65 N.Y. 195; Ex parte ... Wells, 3 Woods 131; McWhinney ... ...
-
Jackson v. Gould
...Hampshire, and communicate with the state court for the purpose of ascertaining what the final judgment there shall be." In Du Vivier v. Hopkins, 116 Mass. 125, GRAY, C. J., the opinion on page 128, says: " When a cause is legally removed into the circuit court of the United States, the jur......
-
Stone v. Sargent
... ... Railroad, 111 Mass. 72. Galpin v ... Critchlow, 112 Mass. 339. Gordon v ... Green, 113 Mass. 259. DuVivier v ... Hopkins, 116 Mass. 125. New York Warehouse ... Co. v. Loomis, 122 Mass. 431. And, ... notwithstanding some dicta of the learned justice who ... delivered ... ...
-
Stephens v. Bernays
... ... without jurisdiction. Revised Statutes, U.S. 1878, sec. 563; ... Railroad v. Gomila, 132 U.S. 484; Du Vivier v ... Hopkins, 116 Mass. 125; Pearce v. Calhoun, 59 ... Mo. 271; Works v. College, 17 Wall. 521; Woerner Am ... Law Adm., p. 341. (3) The state ... ...