George Harrison, Thomas White and Others, Appellants v. Henry Nixon, Surviving Executor of Matthias Aspden, Deceased
Decision Date | 01 January 1835 |
Citation | 34 U.S. 483,9 L.Ed. 201,9 Pet. 483 |
Parties | GEORGE HARRISON, THOMAS H. WHITE AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS v. HENRY NIXON, SURVIVING EXECUTOR OF MATTHIAS ASPDEN, DECEASED |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
Matthias Aspden, on the 6th day of December 1791, made his will, with the codicils annexed thereto, as follows:- 'These are to certify, that I do hereby annul and revoke all my former wills, giving and bequeathing my estate, real and personal, to my heir-at-law, first paying all my just debts and funeral expenses, and the following legacies, first, to each of the children of my half brother, Benjamin Hartley deceased, that may be alive at my death, the sum of 100 pounds to each Pennsylvania currency; and to my half sister Bersheba Zane, wife of Elnathan Zane, the sum of 400 pounds Pennsylvania currency, both the above living or did live at or near Haddonfield; and to my half brother Roger Hartley, living at at present in Lancaster county, the sum of 300 pounds of the like currency. Witness my hand, this 6th day of December 1791, Philadelphie.
'MATTHIAS ASPDEN.
'Philedelphie, December 6th 1791.
'I do further give 100 pounds Pennsylvania currency, to each of the children of my beceased half sister Ann Henchman, that may be living at my death.
'December 6th 1791.
'Note, my property on England is as follows: 12,500 pounds in the four per cent stock; 3000 pounds in the five per cent stock; 1800 pounds in the three per cent stock.'
Indorsement. 'The last of will of Matthias Aspden. I do hereby appoint my friends Mr George Roberts and Mr Abraham Lidden, with the president of the old bank at the time being, to by my executors to this my last will.
'MATTHIAS ASPDEN.'
At April sessions 1821, of the circuit court of the eastern district of Pennsylvania, the following bill was filed:
'Samuel Packer, a citizen of the state of New Jersey v. Henry Nixon, esquire, a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, executor of the last will and testament of Matthias Aspden, esquire, late a citizen of the same state. In equity.
'To the honourable the judges of the circuit court of the United States of the third circuit, in and for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
'Humbly complaining, showeth unto your honours, your orator, Samuel Packer, a citizen of the state of New Jersey, that on the 6th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1791, one Matthias Aspden, esquire, a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, made and executed his last will and testament, bearing date the same day and year, wherein and whereby he gave and bequeathed all his estate, real and personal, to his heir at law; and of the said will appointed his friends, George Roberts, Abraham Lidden, and the president of the old bank at the time being, executors, as by the said will, a true copy whereof is to this bill annexed, and which your orator prays may be taken as part thereof, will more fully appear; after which, to wit, on the ___ day of August, in the year of our Lord 1824, the said Matthias Aspden departed this life, not having altered, cancelled or revoked his said will, and the said George Roberts and Abraham Lidden being then deceased, and Henry Nixon, esquire, a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, being then president of the Bank of North America, which bank the testator meant and intended by the description of the old bank, the said Henry Nixon caused the said will to be duly proved according to the laws of Pennsylvania, and having received letters testamentary thereon, took upon himself the burthen of the execution thereof, and hath possessed himself of all the goods, chattels and other personal estate of the said testator, to a very large amount. And your orator expressly charges, that he is the true and only heir at law of the said Matthias Aspden, and that no other person than himself is entitled to claim or receive the benefit of the said devise and bequest. And he hath repeatedly applied to the said Henry Nixon, to have an account of all and singular the personal estate of the said Matthias Aspden, and where and how the same is situated, and what is the true and exact amount thereof, and to have the amount thereof paid to him, deducting therefrom the just and reasonable charges of the said executor. But now, so it is, may it please your honours, that the said Henry Nixon, combining and confederating with others, to your orator unknown, whose names, when discovered, he prays leave to insert with apt words to charge them as parties, denies that your orator is the heir at law of said Matthias Aspden, or that he is in any way entitled to the benefit of any of the testamentary dispositions of the said Matthias Aspden, and refuses to render him any account of the assets, and to pay him any part thereof.
In tender consideration whereof, and forasmuch as your orator cannot have plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, to the end thereof, that the said Henry Nixon, and his confederates, when discovered, on their oaths or affirmations, full, direct, and true answers may make to all and singular the matters and things herein before set forth, as if they had been particularly interrogated thereon; and that the said Henry Nixon, may render and set forth a just and true account of all and singular the personal estate of the said Matthias Aspden, and where and how the same is situate, and whether there are any and what debts due, or claimed to be due therefrom, and may be decreed to pay to your orator the balance of the said moneys in his hands belonging to the said estate, to which your orator is justly entitled, and your orator may have such further relief in the premises, as is consistent with equity and good conscience, and to this honourable court shall seem meet.'
To this bill the executor filed an answer as follows:
'The answer of Henry Nixon, the defendant, to the bill of complaint of Samuel Packer, complainant.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Duehay v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co., 7183.
...which he derives his power * * *." Italics supplied Appellant contends, however, that the Union Bank case was overruled by Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Pet. 483, 9 L.Ed. 201. But the two cases are easily distinguishable. The latter case did not decide, nor did it discuss, the question settled by th......
-
Old Kent Bank and Trust Company v. United States
...In construing this language of the will it is our duty to ascertain and apply the laws and policy of Michigan. Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Pet. (34 U.S.) 483, 503, 504, 9 L.Ed. 201; Piatt v. Gray, 321 F.2d 79, 82 (C.A.6); President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Jewett, 11 F.2d 119 (C.A.6); In re......
-
Riverside Oil & Refining Co. v. Dudley
...v. Lovell, 109 U. S. 194, 3 S. Ct. 132, 27 L. Ed. 903), such omission cannot be supplied by proof of facts not pleaded (Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Pet. 483, 9 L. Ed. 201), and the court will refuse injunctive relief where there is such omission in allegations even though no demurrer be filed to s......
-
United States v. Seigel
... ... George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and Mr ... contracts are made for the benefit of others ... A person who has not ... paragraph authorizes substitution for deceased parties in general, goes on to provide that "if ... ...
-
THE REMAND POWER AND THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE.
...Wiborg v. United States, 163 U.S. 632, 658 (1896). (155) 24 U.S. (11 Wheal.) 1, 4 (1826). (156) Id. at 38; see also Harrison v. Nixon, 34 U.S. 483, 540 (1835) (remanding with directions to allow amendment to the pleadings and joinder of additional parties in equity case); ERASTUS C. BENEDIC......