Insurance Company v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
| Citation | 24 L.Ed. 1114,97 U.S. 682 |
| Parties | INSURANCE COMPANY v. LEWIS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Everett W. Pattison for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. D. S. Dryden, contra.
This action was commenced in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, by Lewis, the defendant in error, as public administrator of that county, upon a policy of insurance dated July 30, 1873, whereby the Union Mutual Life Insurance Company of Maine agreed to insure the life of William S. Berton, 'of Milwaukee, County of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin,' in the sum of $5,000, payable three months after due proof of death, to his executors, administrators, or assigns. The case was removed for trial into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri, where a verdict and judgment were rendered against the company. A new trial and motion in arrest of judgment having both been denied, the present writ of error is prosecuted by the company.
A preliminary question is presented as to the right of the defendant in error, as public administrator of St. Louis County, Missouri, to maintain any action whatever upon the policy sued on. His authority in the premises is claimed to exist under a Missouri statute of 1868, which was in force when this action was instituted. That statute makes it 'the duty of the public administrator to take into his charge and custody the estates of all deceased persons in his county, in the following instances: First, When a stranger dies intestate in the county, without relatives, or dies leaving a will, and the executor named is absent, or fails to qualify; second, when persons die intestate, without any known heirs; third, when persons unknown die, or are found dead, in the county; fourth, when money, property, papers, or other estate are left in a situation exposed to loss or damage, and no other person administers on the same; fifth, when any estate of any person who dies intestate therein or elsewhere is left in the county liable to be injured, wasted, or lost, when said intestate does not leave a known husband, widow, or heir in this State; sixth, when from any good cause said court shall order him to take possession of any estate to prevent its being injured, wasted, purloined, or lost.' 1 Wagner's Stat., ed. 1872, p. 122. The same statute requires the public administrator, immediately upon taking charge of any estate, for the purpose of administering the same (except that of which he shall take charge under the order of the proper court), to file a notice of such fact in the clerk's office of the court having probate jurisdiction. Id. p. 123.
On 17th September, 1875, the defendant in error, as public administrator, filed in the clerk's office of the Probate Court of St. Louis County a notice, addressed to the judge of that court, informing creditors and all other persons interested in the estate of William S. Berton, 'late of the county of St Louis,' that he had, on that day, taken charge of such estate, for the purpose of administering the same; and immediately thereafter, on the same day, commenced this action in the Circuit Court of that county, without making and presenting proofs of loss, or giving the company previous notice of his administration, or that he, as such administrator, asserted any claim under the policy. These steps were taken, as was conceded on the trial below, 'for the sole purpose of administering upon and collecting the policy in suit.' It also appears that Berton, at the date of the policy, and at his death, which occurred on 31st March, 1874, was a resident of Milwaukee and a citizen of Wisconsin; that he died in that city, and had not at any time resided in the State of Missouri; that he left no money, property, papers, or other estate in Missouri; that the policy sued on was found among his papers after his death; that on 5th June, 1874, administration upon his estate was granted by the County Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, to Benjamin K. Miller; that the defendant in error was never ordered by the Probate Court of St. Louis County, or any other court, to take charge of Berton's estate.
The bare statement of these facts, which are admitted or are clearly proven, is enough to show an absolute want of authority in Lewis to take charge of or administer the estate of Berton. His collection, by suit, of the amount, if any, due from the company upon the policy sued on, or any administration by him, in his capacity as public administrator,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dugan's Estate, In re
...maintains his action in Illinois. See Ellenberg v. Arthur, 178 S.C. 490, 183 S.E. 306, 103 A.L.R. 437; Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Lewis, 97 U.S. 682, 24 L.Ed. 1114. In Donaldson v. Lewis, 7 Mo.App. 403, a public administrator was appointed and an acknowledged debtor moved for revoca......
-
Paris v. Wilmington Trust Company, a Corporation of State
... ... thereon. Merrill v. New England, etc., Co., 103 ... Mass. 245, 248, 4 Am. Rep. 548; Insurance Co. v ... Lewis, 97 U.S. 682, 24 L.Ed. 1114 ... When a ... decedent has assets in more than one jurisdiction, there is ... unity of ... ...
-
Hodges v. Kimball
...sought to be recovered by the New York administrator vested. The case was in this respect much like the more recent case of Insurance Co. v. Lewis, 97 U.S. 682, 686, where same question was considered, as to whether the defense raising the right of an administrator to sue should not be made......
-
Moore v. Jordan
... ... Colorado with his son, and for the benefit of his son's ... health. In company with his son he went to Colorado in ... February, 1879, and remained there until October of the ... state by the foreign administrator." (Noonan v ... Bradley, 9 Wall. 394; Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 97 ... U.S. 682.) ... The ... mere fact that the notes and mortgage chanced to be in ... ...