Hall v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 31 March 1855
• Citation: 21 Mo. 227
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: HALL & OTHERS, Plaintiffs in Error, v. HARRISON, Defendant in Error.

21 Mo. 227

HALL & OTHERS, Plaintiffs in Error,

v.HARRISON, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1855.

1. An administrator appointed in another state may maintain a suit in this state, upon a judgment recovered by him in his representative capacity to the former state against a party who was a citizen of that state at the death of his intestate.

2. A statement in a petition that the record upon which the suit is founded is filed with it, does not make the record a part of the petition, so that it can be noticed on demurrer.

Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

William Hall and James Hall commenced a suit in the Court of Chancery of the state of New York, against James Harrison and others. Harrison appeared to the suit and answered the bill. Pending that suit, James Hall died, and Lewis Hall, Benjamin F. Morgan and Maria Hall, as his administrators, were substituted in his place as complainants. The suit resulted in a decree in favor of the complainants against Harrison for the payment of a sum of money. The parties, complainants in that suit, instituted an action by petition in the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas, against Harrison, to recover the amount awarded by the decree. The petition stated that an authenticated copy of the record of the proceedings, which resulted in the decree, was filed with it. Harrison demurred on the ground that the plaintiffs, described as administrators of James Hall, showed no authority to sue as such under the laws of this state. The court below sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment for the defendant. There was no allegation in the petition as to the citizenship of Harrison at the death of James Hall.

R. M. Field, for plaintiff in error. Administrators, having recovered a judgment in another state in their representative capacity, can sue upon that judgment in this state in their own right; and the statement that they are administrators is mere description. Several early English cases sustain the decision of the court below. These cases are: Hitchcock's case, Cro. Eliz. 327. S. C. Saville, 130. Hargrave's Case, 5 Co. 31. S. C. Cro. Eliz. 711. Carew v. Broughton, Lane, 79. Riche v. Franke, 2 Brownl. 202. Paule v. Moodie, 2 Rall's Rep. 132. Reynell v. Longcastle, Cro. Jac. 545. Townley v. Steele, Hutton, 78. Martin v. Hendley, Styles, 232. Glover v. Kendall, 1 Lutw. 369. Brookes v. Crooke, 1 Shower, 55. Waite v. Briggs, 1 Ld. Raym. 35. But these cases have all been since overruled. ( Crawford v. Whittall, Douglass, 4, note. Bonafous v. Walker, 2 D. & E. 226. 1 Williams on Executors, 572.) The following American cases were cited: Talmage v. Chapel, 16 Mass. Rep. Brodie v. Brickley, 2 Rawle, 431. Biddle v. Wilkins, 1 Peters, 686. Trecothick v. Austin, 4 Mason, 16. Stewart v. Richey, 2 Harrison's (N. J.) Rep. 164. Savage v. Meriam, 1 Blackf. 176. Story's Conflict of Laws, § 522. Lecompte v. Sargeant, 7 Mo. Rep. 352. Thomas v. Relfe, 9 Mo. Rep. 377. Abbot v. Miller, 10 Mo. Rep. 141. Harney v. Dutcher, 15 Mo. Rep. 89. A de cree of a court of equity stands upon the same footing as a judgment of a court of law. ( Pennington v. Gibson, 16 Howard, 65.)

Geyer & Dayton, for defendant in error.

1. The petition discloses the relation of the parties who profess to be administrators of James Hall, to the money sought to be recovered. Any money recovered would be assets in their hands, which cannot be withdrawn from this state but by the authority of its laws, and those laws require an administration by persons appointed for that purpose within the state. (R. C. 1845, p. 55 et seq. McCarty v. Hale, 13 Mo. Rep. Spraddling v. Keeton, 15 Mo. Rep. Lee v. Harris, Brayton's Rep. 93. Thompson v. Wilson, 2 N. H. Rep. 231. Toller's Executors, (2d Am. ed.) 450. R. C. 1845, tit. Administration, art. 6, § 19, 22, 23, 24, art. 1, § 43; tit. Judgments, § 16. Practice at Law, art. 5, § 8, 9 et seq. Story's Conflict of Laws, § 513, 523. 1 Greenleaf's Ev. § 544. 1 Johns. Ch. Rep. 153. 4 Gill & J. 332. 3 Mass. 304, 509. 9 Mass. 467.) 2. The record upon which this suit was founded and which was filed with the petition, shows no final decree.

LEONARD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

1. This case has been submitted to us upon written arguments, and the counsel seem not to have entirely concurred in their views of the questions of law proper to be discussed for the decision of the cause.

The plaintiffs labor to establish as a general proposition that, if an administrator recover a judgment upon a cause of action belonging to his intestate, he may afterwards sue on it in his own name without any reference to his representative capacity.

The defendant, assuming that the debtor was a citizen of this state when the intestate died, insists that our laws recognize no foreign testamentary jurisdiction over the debt, and that it must be collected by a home administrator, and administered here, at least until the claims of our own citizens are satisfied; and that no matter what effect the laws of New York or the common law may impute to the judgment, the foreign administrator cannot be allowed to defeat the policy of our own laws, by withdrawing in this manner the fund from the jurisdiction of our tribunals.

There seems to be no doubt of the correctness of the plaintiff's position as a mere question of common law. The old cases, in which it was holden that an administrator could not sue in his own right upon a judgment recovered by him as administrator, are overruled, and it is now settled that he may do so. ( Bonafous v. Walker, 2 Term Rep. 126. Crawford v. Whittall, Doug. 4, n. 1. 1 Wil. on Executors, 753. Talmage v. Chapel, 16 Mass. 71. Biddle v. Wilkins, 1 Peters, 686. 1 Williams on Executors, 748, note u, 753.)

None of the cases, however, we think, touch the point now made by the defendant. They declare the effect under the local law of a judgment recovered by an administrator, but do not pass on the question of the testamentary jurisdiction of one country over debts existing in another, and we do not see how this point can be raised upon the record now before us. Admitting that our own laws require us to declare that the state of New York had no testamentary jurisdiction over the debt now in controversy, if the debtor were a citizen of this state when the creditor died, there is yet nothing in this record disclosing that fact. If we are to infer that the defendant is a citizen of this state because he is sued here, we may infer that he was a citizen of New York when he was sued there. In the absence of all proof, however, our duty is to presume that the court in New York exercised such jurisdiction as it lawfully had, and then this judgment must be taken prima facie to vest...