Greenhood v. Greenhood

• Decision Date: 11 May 1905
• Citation: 39 So. 299,143 Ala. 440
• Parties: GREENHOOD v. GREENHOOD.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

39 So. 299

143 Ala. 440

GREENHOOD v. GREENHOOD.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 11, 1905

Appeal from Chancery Court, Mobile County; Thos. H. Smith Chancellor.

Bill by Esther Greenhood against Helena Greenhood and others for the removal of the further administration of the estate of Morris Greenhood, deceased, to the chancery court of Mobile county and to require the executrix to give bond. From an order overruling a demurrer to certain portions of the bill, the above named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Gregory L. & H. T. Smith, for appellant.

R. H. &amp N. R. Clarke, for appellee.

DENSON J.

The bill in this case was filed by Esther Greenhood, a child of Morris Greenhood, deceased, as one of the legatees under the will of deceased and a distributee of his estate. It was exhibited against Helena Greenhood as an individual and as executrix of the last will and testament of said deceased and against all the other legatees and devisees under said will and distributees of the estate of said deceased. The purpose of the bill was to have the further administration of the estate of Morris Greenhood, deceased, removed into the chancery court of Mobile county, and to require the executrix to make bond. It is the law of this state that any person entitled to share in the distribution of an estate has the right to have the estate administered in a court of equity without assigning any special equity for transferring the estate to such court. Bromberg v. Bates, 98 Ala. 621, 13 So. 557, and authorities there cited; Ligon v. Ligon, 105 Ala. 464, 17 So. 89; Baker v. Mitchell, 109 Ala. 490, 20 So. 40.

The bill shows that Morris Greenhood, on the 9th of August, 1886, was a resident citizen of Shubuta, in Clarke county, Miss.; that he owned valuable personal and landed estates in Mississippi and in the city of Mobile, Ala.; that on said day he made his last will and testament, in which he named Helena Greenhood as executrix, without bond; that after the making of said will he moved to and became an inhabitant of the city of Mobile, Ala.; that he died in the city of Mobile March 1, 1891, leaving said will in full force; that on the 26th day of March, 1891, on the application of Helena Greenhood the said will was regularly admitted to probate in the probate court of Mobile county, Ala., and letters testamentary were issued thereon to Helena Greenhood, without bond. It further appears that before the 1st day of May, 1891, on the application of the said Helena Greenhood, said will was duly admitted to probate in the chancery court of Clarke county, Miss., a court of competent jurisdiction of such matters, and letters testamentary were issued thereon by said court to Helena Greenhood, without bond. On the 1st day of May, 1892, the testatrix had converted all of the property of the estate of her testator in the state of Mississippi into money and transferred it to Mobile county, into the jurisdiction of the probate court of that county. It is averred that no settlement has been made by said estate in the courts of Mississippi. It is further averred in the bill that the said executrix, in violation of the terms of the will and of complainant's rights under the will, has appropriated and is appropriating all the estate of her testator which she has lawfully converted into money, as well as all the proceeds of property which she has unlawfully sold, to her own use and to that of her children, Julius and Bertha.

The first point of attack made by the demurrer to the bill is that the chancery court at Mobile has no jurisdiction over the settlement of the administration of so much of the estate as was located in the state of Mississippi. The argument is that "all of the property of the decedent, though situate in several states, constitutes but one estate, but the several administrations in different jurisdictions are separate and distinct, and the court of the domicile state has no jurisdiction over the administration of the assets situate in the state where an ancillary administration has been taken out until a final settlement of the ancillary administration has been had in the state having jurisdiction over it." The appellants seem to have lost sight of the facts that the executrix of the estate in Mississippi and in Alabama is one and the same person, that she was appointed in each state without bond, and that the bill shows that the executrix had converted all of the assets belonging to the testator situate in the state of Mississippi into money, and had transferred the same to the county of Mobile, in the state of Alabama. In their brief appellant's counsel have cited the case of Worthy v. Lyon, 18 Ala. 784, in support of their contention. In the case of Colbert v Daniel, 32 Ala. 314, the question raised by this demurrer was considered. We quote what the court there said: "We cannot assent to the proposition that a legatee cannot sue in this state an executor for an account and settlement of his administration and recovery of the legacy, when the executor has removed to and become domiciled in this state without having made a settlement in the state in which the administration was pending. We admit that there is authority which...