In re Simons. riginal
| Decision Date | 03 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | O,No. 26,26 |
| Citation | 247 U.S. 231,38 S.Ct. 497,62 L.Ed. 1094 |
| Parties | In re SIMONS. riginal |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Roger Foster, of New York City, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 231-234 intentionally omitted] Mr. Edgar T. Brackett, of Saratoga Springs, N. Y., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 235-237 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a petition for mandamus, or, if that is denied, for prohibition or certiorari, to the District Court for the Southern District of New York upon the following facts: The petitioner brought an action in two counts against the executors of a widow named Frank Leslie. The first count alleged a promise by Mrs. Leslie that if the plaintiff would perform certain personal services of attendance and care to her, she would bequeath to the plaintiff $50,000. It set forth the performance of the services in great detail, alleged the death of Mrs. Leslie and probate of her will, the bequest to the plaintiff of not more than $10,000, and claimed $40,000 with interest from one year after the death of the testatrix, as damages. The second count repeats by reference the averments of the first count, but alleges a promise to pay the reasonable value of the plaintiff's services, set at $50,000 of which $10,000 have been satisfied by legacy, and claims damages as before. On motion of the defendants the judge sitting to hear motions in the District Court ordered the first cause of action to be transferred to the equity side of the Court and docketed as an equity cause, and to be stricken out of the complaint in the action at law, but only for the purpose of transfer, allowing the plaintiff to amend, etc. The ground disclosed was that by the law of New York the plaintiff could not sustain the first cause of action at law.
We do not find sufficient ground for the opinion of the judge in the New York decisions. No doubt alleged contracts to make a provision by will must be approached with great caution in the matter of proof, but there is no doubt that if proved they are valid so far as no statute intervenes. So much seems to be assumed by the order of the judge, and is the law we believe of New York as well as of other states and England. But if valid we see no reason why a contract to bequeath a certain sum should not give rise to an action for damages if broken, as certainly as a contract to pay the same sum in the contractor's life, or at the moment of the contractor's death. Parker v. Coburn, 10 Allen, 82. In cases of contracts to leave all the testator's property, including land, or a proportion of a residue requiring an account to ascertain it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beacon Theaters, Inc v. Westover
...procedures available under the Federal Rules, see Ring v. Spina, 2 Cir., 166 F.2d 546, 550. 20 E.g., Ex parte Simons, 247 U.S. 231, 239—240, 38 S.Ct. 497, 498, 62 L.Ed. 1094; Ex parte Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 305—306, 40 S.Ct. 543, 544—545, 64 L.Ed. 919; Bereslavsky v. Caffey, 2 Cir., 161 F.......
-
In re Josephson, 4854.
...need of caution by courts of appeals in applying Supreme Court precedents in this general filed, we may refer to Ex parte Simons, 1918, 247 U.S. 231, 38 S.Ct. 497, 62 L.Ed. 1094, which case we do not regard as militating against the conclusion we reached as to our own lack of power in the c......
-
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass
...189, 70 L.Ed. 449. The decisions of this Court on which respondents especially rely are not applicable here. In In re Simons, 247 U.S. 231, 38 S.Ct. 497, 498, 62 L.Ed. 1094, the writ directed the district court to set aside its order transferring to the equity docket a case plainly triable ......
-
Hathaway Bakeries, Inc. v. Labor Relations Comm'n
...the case, and to whose jurisdiction the petitioner has objected at the outset of the proceedings.’ To the same effect see Ex parte Simons, 247 U.S. 231, 237, 38 S.Ct. 497, 62 L.Ed. 1094;Hall v. Superior Court, 198 Cal. 373, 245 P. 814;Curtis v. Cornish, 109 Me. 384, 84 A. 799. We see nothin......