Hannan v. Slush

• Decision Date: 26 July 1922
• Docket Number: 461.
• Citation: 283 F. 211
• Parties: HANNAN et al. v. SLUSH et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

283 F. 211

HANNAN et al. v. SLUSH et al.

No. 461.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

July 26, 1922

John R Rood, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.

Harry Helfman, of Detroit, Mich., for defendant Luella Hannan.

TUTTLE District Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint herein on the grounds that defendant Luella Hannan is not a citizen of Michigan nor resident of this district, and that, as the bill on its face shows that she is an indispensable party, and that the jurisdiction of this court is based upon alleged diversity of citizenship, said bill should be dismissed for lack of the necessary jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs rest their arguments in support of the existence of such jurisdiction upon the contentions: (1) That the said defendant is not an indispensable party to this suit; and (2) that her citizenship or residence is immaterial as this is a 'local suit,' and within the provisions of section 57 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. Sec. 1039).

1. The bill of complaint alleges that said defendant is a resident and citizen of the state of California, and that the plaintiffs are citizens and residents of the state of Iowa. If, therefore, said defendant is an indispensable party, and if this suit does not fall within the provisions of section 57 of the Judicial Code, the bill, based as it is upon diversity of citizenship, must be dismissed. Camp v Gress, 250 U.S. 308, 39 Sup.Ct. 478, 63 L.Ed. 997.

The bill alleges in substance that one William W. Hannan, a resident of Detroit, in this district, died testate in 1917 leaving a large estate, in said district and elsewhere, and a will, copy of which is attached to said bill, and expressly made a part thereof; that the plaintiffs are nephew and niece, respectively, of the testator, and entitled under the law to one-half of the real and personal estate of said testator of which he may have died intestate; that by the express terms of the aforesaid will each of the plaintiffs is entitled to a legacy in the sum of $50,000; that the value of the said estate owned by the testator at the time of his death was in excess of $5,000,000, which has since greatly increased; that in the said will, which was duly probated provision was made for said defendant Luella Hannan, who was also named therein as one of three trustees, one of whom Flavius L. Brooke, has since died, and the other, Matthew Slush, is one of the defendants, but it was further provided that, if the said defendant Luella Hannan, who was the wife of the testator, should elect to take otherwise than according to the provisions of the will, the said provisions therein made for her and for certain of her relatives, defendants herein, should be deemed revoked, canceled, and of no effect; that, about a year after the death of the testator, his said widow, while misinformed as to the facts and her rights thereunder, and while mentally incompetent, filed in the probate court a void election to take under the said will according to its provisions, instead of the provision which she might have had by the statutes of Michigan, notwithstanding the said will; that about a year later said widow, declaring that her said election was made by her when incompetent, mentally and physically, to do so, and without knowledge of the facts and law affecting her rights in the premises, filed a bill in this court, to which the present plaintiffs were not parties, wherein the said defendant Luella Hannan 'sought to void her election to take under the said will, and to have declared and paid to her her share as widow of the said testator under the laws of the state of Michigan, notwithstanding the said will'; that after the filing of the said bill defendant Matthew Slush, as surviving trustee, entered into negotiations with the said defendant Luella Hannan, and agreed in writing with her to pay to her, in settlement of her claims as widow and of her rights in the premises, a lump sum demanded by the said Luella Hannan, entirely different from and contrary to the provisions made for her by the terms of the said will; that in furtherance and execution of the said settlement a consent decree was entered in the aforesaid suit, dismissing the bill therein, and said settlement agreement was approved by the aforesaid probate court without the knowledge of, and without any notice to, the plaintiffs, or any heirs or legatees of said testator; that the said trustee, Matthew Slush, 'in his said dealings with the said Luella Hannan' and with her said relatives, is assuming and threatening 'to pay the major portion of the cash and liquid assets of the said estate to the said Luella Hannan' and her said relatives, 'in violation of the rights of these plaintiffs, whereby the proper and timely satisfaction of the legacies of these plaintiffs under the said will are imperiled'; that, notwithstanding her election as aforesaid to take otherwise than under the will, the said ...