In re Estate of Williams

• Decision Date: 18 May 1906
• Citation: 107 N.W. 608,130 Iowa 553
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LESTER A. WILLIAMS, deceased. v. GIB ROOT, Administrator, Appellee. WILLIAM O'CONNOR, Appellant, GIB ROOT, Administrator, Appellee, v. MARK J. SEEDS, and CRISSMAN and SARGENT, Appellants. GIB ROOT, Administrator, Appellee, v. MARK J. SEEDS, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

107 N.W. 608

130 Iowa 553

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LESTER A. WILLIAMS, deceased.

WILLIAM O'CONNOR, Appellant, v. GIB ROOT, Administrator, Appellee.

GIB ROOT, Administrator, Appellee, v. MARK J. SEEDS, and CRISSMAN and SARGENT, Appellants.

GIB ROOT, Administrator, Appellee, v. MARK J. SEEDS, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 18, 1906

Appeal from Linn District Court.--HON.J. H. PRESTON, Judge.

Affirmed.

Dawley Hubbard & Wheeler and Crissman & Sargent for appellants.

Powell & Powell, Redmond & Stewart, and Grimm, Trewin & Moffit for appellee.

OPINION

THE opinion states the facts material to a consideration of the above-entitled cases all of which have been consolidated for the purposes of argument and submission.--Affirmed.

WEAVER J.

For ten years or more prior to June, 1903, Lester A. Williams, a young unmarried man, resided with his father at the home of the latter in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. About the date mentioned he went to the state of Illinois and after a short stay there continued his journey to Indiana, remaining in that state about two weeks. Thence he went to Michigan where he was employed as a printer in various offices in the cities of South Haven, Grand Rapids, and Lansing, and, on December 26, 1903, while still employed in the latter city, was killed in a railway collision. He left no will and no property real or personal except a quantity of books and furniture of the value of some $ 200 at the home of his father in Cedar Rapids. It being alleged that his death was caused by the negligence of the railway company, and the laws of Michigan providing for a recovery of damages in such cases, certain creditors of the deceased, acting on the theory that such damages could be subjected to the payment of his debts, applied to the district court of Linn county, Iowa, and procured the appointment of the appellee as administrator of the estate of the deceased. This appointment was made on December 29, 1903, and was afterwards ratified and agreed to by John H. Williams, father and only heir of the deceased. This administrator employed counsel, and at once took up the matter of collecting the claim against the railway company. Thereafter Mark J. Seeds, who was another creditor of the deceased, and resident of Iowa, went to Michigan and made application to the probate court of Ingham county in that state for the appointment of an administrator there. While this application was pending one of appellee's counsel being in Michigan went to the judge of probate before whom the proceedings were being had and left in his hands written objections to the granting of the application, alleging that Lester A. Williams, was at the time of his death a resident of Linn county, Iowa, where an administrator had already been appointed. It would seem, however, that these objections were never filed or considered by the Michigan court, for thereafter on March 22, 1904, an order was entered granting the application, and appointing William O'Connor administrator and the record of the application hearing and order recites no appearance by or objection made on behalf of the Iowa administrator and attempts no adjudication of the conflicting claims of jurisdiction. The letters of administration to O'Connor bear date March 24, 1904. Before this appointment was made the Iowa administrator had effected a settlement with the railway company, from which he received the sum of $ 3,000 in payment and satisfaction of the claim for damages on account of the death of the intestate. Growing out of these several complications are the three appeals which we now proceed to consider.

I. Soon after the appointment of O'Connor by the Michigan court he appeared in the probate proceedings then pending in the District court of Linn county, Iowa, and applied to have the appointment of the appellee as administrator of the estate of Lester A. Williams set aside, and all orders theretofore made by the court with reference to said estate vacated and annulled. In support of this application, he alleged that said Williams at the time of his death was an inhabitant and resident of Michigan; that he had no estate in Iowa to be administered upon, and the appointment of an administrator in this state was therefore without jurisdiction and void. It was also alleged that the appellee appeared in the Michigan court to object to said O'Connor's appointment in that state, and that said court after a hearing upon the merits found against the position taken by the appellee, and that thereby the order made by said court granting the application for O'Connor's appointment became and was an adjudication of the controversy as to the jurisdiction for original administration, and estopped the appellee to insist upon jurisdiction in Iowa. These claims were denied by appellee, and, upon trial to the court, the application to set aside the appointment of Root and to vacate the orders previously made in reference to said estate was dismissed, and O'Connor appeals.

That Lester A. Williams was at the date of his death a resident of Iowa, and that his absence was for temporary purposes only, with a fixed intention from the outset to return to Cedar Rapids and continue his home there, is too clearly shown to admit of any doubt. He was a student in a college at or near his home, but his studies had been interrupted by the necessity of finding temporary employment to earn money. His letters home expressed his purpose to return soon and resume his studies for his degree, and to get back in time to vote at the next election. He was engaged to be married to a lady residing in the state, and every circumstance disclosed in the record is in entire harmony with the conclusion that his home was in Iowa, and that the proper place for the principal administration upon his estate is here. Indeed, counsel do not seriously contest this proposition, but place their principal reliance upon the so-called adjudication. In our judgment this claim is not well founded. Without taking the time and space necessary to set out the order appointing the appellant O'Connor by the Michigan court, it is enough to say that it makes no attempt directly or indirectly to pass upon any issue between the opposing claimants to the administration. It recites no more than the presentation of the application for O'Connor's appointment, suggests no appearance in the proceeding except that of the applicant Seeds and the presentation of formal proofs that Williams was an inhabitant of Michigan, and now deceased, leaving personal estate to be administered upon, and concludes with the order for the appointment as prayed.

The fact that one of the appellee's counsel out of court placed his written objections to the proceedings in the hands of the probate judge we regard as immaterial in the absence of anything in the record to show that such objections were considered or passed upon by such court. The mere fact that the written objections were not formally marked as filed, would, perhaps, be a matter of no great importance, if the record of that court gave any indication that any appearance was made by the objector, and that the subject-matter of such objections was considered, or the issue thereby raised was passed upon; but nothing of the kind appears. There is nothing whatever in the order of the probate court which would not naturally appear there upon any ordinary ex parte hearing of a petition for letters of administration. We are satisfied, therefore, with the correctness of the conclusion of the district court upon this issue, and hold there was no error in retaining and exercising jurisdiction of said administration by the court below.

Indeed, even if there had been an actual appearance by counsel for the Iowa administrator in the Michigan court, and, after a contest, that tribunal had expressly decided in favor of its own jurisdiction, we do not see how such an adjudication would have any effect whatever upon the right of the courts of this state to proceed with the administration here granted, and to control and direct the distribution of the estate within its jurisdiction, including the moneys collected by its administrator from the railway company in Michigan. Letters of administration have no extraterritorial effect, and it seems clear that an administrator cannot oust the jurisdiction of the court which appointed him or limit the exercise of its authority by going into a foreign state and engaging in litigation therein. Certainly not where the administrator's excursion into the foreign jurisdiction is made otherwise than by the order or sanction of the court of which he is the trustee or officer.

II. On learning that Seeds was applying for administration in Michigan, appellee filed a petition in equity in the district court of Linn county, Iowa, making said Seeds and his counsel parties defendant, asking that they be enjoined from prosecuting any further proceeding in the courts of Michigan to subject the moneys collected from the railway company on account of the death of Lester A. Williams to the payment of the claim held by Seeds against his estate. The petition alleged the residence of the intestate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; his death in Michigan; the sole heirship of his father, also a resident of Iowa; the appointment of Root as the domiciliary administrator of the estate, and the application of Seeds to procure the administration in Michigan for the purpose of subjecting the damages collected from the railway company to the payment of his claim. The petition further alleged that the intestate left no property or assets in the state of Michigan, and nothing to administer upon in that state except said claim for damages, and that there were no creditors of said estate residing in Michigan that...