Jefferson v. Beall

• Decision Date: 01 February 1898
• Citation: 117 Ala. 436,23 So. 44
• Parties: JEFFERSON v. BEALL ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

23 So. 44

117 Ala. 436

JEFFERSON v. BEALL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 1, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Russell county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.

Action by Rollin Jefferson against L. C. Beall, as executrix, and C M. Beall, executor, of the estate of Barden Burts, deceased on a judgment rendered against them by the superior court of Stewart county, state of Georgia. From a judgment entered on a verdict directed by the court in favor of defendants plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Smith &amp Henry, for appellant.

Boykin & Benton, for appellees.

BRICKELL C.J.

The suit is upon a judgment rendered in the state of Georgia against the executrix of a will of original probate in this state, to whom original letters testamentary were issued by the proper jurisdiction, and her husband, who, by virtue of the intermarriage, became co-executor. The force and effect of this judgment in this state is the question presented by the rulings of the court below on the demurrer to the plea of the defendants, and by the general affirmative instruction given the jury. It seems to be settled by the weight, if not by an unbroken concurrence, of judicial authority, that a judgment rendered in a foreign jurisdiction against a domiciliary personal representative is void, whether objection is or is not made to the exercise of jurisdiction by the foreign court, and whether the judgment is against the same or a different representative. The accepted theory of administration is that the right and liability is purely representative, and exists only by force of the official character, and so cannot pass beyond the jurisdiction which grants it, and reserves to itself full and exclusive authority over all the assets of the estate within its limits. Braithwaite v. Harvey (Mont.) 27 Lawy. Rep. Ann. 101, and notes (s. c. 36 P. 38); Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254, 11 S.Ct. 773; Hopper v. Hopper, 125 N.Y. 400, 26 N.E. 457, 12 Lawy. Rep. Ann. 237; Johnson v. Wallis, 112 N.Y. 230, 19 N.E. 653, 2 Lawy. Rep. Ann. 828; Robinson v. Robinson, 11 Ala. 947; Harrison v. Mahorner, 14 Ala. 834; Hatchett v. Berney, 65 Ala. 39.

The record affirmatively shows in this case that appellant sued and obtained the judgment against the defendants, describing them as executors, and that the present suit is upon such judgment against them, in the same capacity, in this state. The only complication or difficulty in the case arises from the fact that both suits are against the same persons who would in ordinary cases be concluded by an adverse judgment. But in this class of cases the defendant is not personally a party, otherwise than as a commissioned representative of ...