In re Collins' Estate

• Decision Date: 02 December 1932
• Citation: 165 A. 285
• Parties: In re COLLINS' ESTATE.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

165 A. 285

In re COLLINS' ESTATE.

Surrogate's Court of New Jersey, Essex County.

Dec. 2, 1932.

Proceedings in the matter of the estate of Mary E. Collins, deceased, by Ina P. Hatch, as administratrix of the estate of Mercie E. Hatch, deceased, to open and set aside the general letters of administration of Mary E. Collins, deceased, and for special letters of administration upon her estate as a nonresident. On rule to show cause.

Relief prayed for granted.

Alexander T. Schenck, of Newark, for Mercie T. Hatch.

Stanley L. Gedney, Jr., of East Orange, for Mary E. Collins' estate.

ANDREW J. WHINERY, Surrogate.

Mary E. Collins died January 16, 1930. On the petition of Savings, Investment & Trust Company of East Orange, reciting that she died a resident of Essex county, it was appointed administrator of her estate of May 21, 1930, by the surrogate of Essex county. It has administered the estate and filed its final account, which, however, has not yet been approved by the orphans' court. It then, on April 14, 1932, filed a petition to the orphans' court for a decree of distribution, alleging therein that doubt had arisen as to whether the decedent, at the time of her death, was domiciled in New Jersey or in New York. If her domicile was in New York, distribution under the law of that state would be different from distribution under the law of this state. On June 29, 1932, Ina P. Hatch, as administratrix of the estate of Mercie E. Hatch, deceased, who was one of next of kin of Mary E. Collins, filed a petition with the surrogate of Essex county in which the alleged facts relating to Mary E. Collins and her estate were set forth and a prayer made that the general letters of administration on her estate be opened and set aside, and that special letters of administration upon her estate as a nonresident be issued to the Savings, Investment & Trust Company, to the end that distribution might be made in accordance with the laws of New York. A rule to show cause was thereupon made by the surrogate and a copy thereof served upon all of the known persons who might benefit from her estate, either under the laws of New Jersey or of New York. On the return date of this rule, August 9, 1932, a hearing on the petition and rule was held by the surrogate. Under P. L. 1917, c. 133 (Comp. St. Supp. § 146—208), the surrogate is given authority for good cause to open, vacate, and set aside any decree made in his court.

Caleb and Margaret Collins, his wife, resided at Woodmere, Long Island, New York State, for almost forty years. The decedent, Mary E. Collins, was their only daughter. Throughout her infancy and during her majority and until her death she was mentally incompetent. In 1924, her mother, Margaret Collins, died at Woodmere. Soon thereafter, her father, Caleb Collins, placed the daughter, who was then an adult, with the Misses Kenton of Kearney, N. J., as a boarder and under their care. He paid her board and furnished other necessities of life for her until his death. The decedent remained with the Kentons until her death, except for a short time when she was in an institution. Caleb Collins died July 30, 1925. His will, dated July 23, 1925, recites that he was resident in Woodmere; the probate proceedings were in Nassau county, Long Island. It is thus established that Caleb and Margaret Collins were domiciled in Woodmere, Long Island.

During the minority of Mary E. Collins, her domicile was in Woodmere, Long Island, because of her father's domicile there. Blumenthal v. Tannenholz, 31 N. J. Eq. 194; Hess v. Kimble, 79 N. J. Eq. 454, 81 A. 363; Rinaldi v. Rinaldi, 94 N. J. Eq. 14, 118 A. 685. See, also, 9 R. C. L. 547. A domicile, once existing, continues until another is acquired. Cadwalader v. Howell, 18 N. J. Law, 138; Clark v. Likens, 26 N. J. Law, 207; Watkinson v. Watkinson, 68 N. J. Eq. 632, 60 A. 931, 69 L. R. A. 397, 6 Ann. Cas. 326; Guggenheim v. City of Long Branch, 80 N. J. Law, 246, 76 A. 338, affirmed in 83 N. J. Law, 628, 84 A. 21. To acquire a new domicile, both residence in the new locality and intention to remain there are...