Jenkins v. Lester

• Decision Date: 28 September 1881
• Citation: 131 Mass. 355
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Alfred Jenkins, Jr. v. Rhoda A. Lester & others

131 Mass. 355

Alfred Jenkins, Jr. v. Rhoda A. Lester & others

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

September 28, 1881

Hampshire. Bill in equity by Alfred Jenkins, Jr., of Baltimore in the State of Maryland, against Rhoda Ann Lester of Amherst in the county of Hampshire, and Caroline Mitkiewicz and Eugene Mitkiewicz her husband, both of Baltimore aforesaid.

The bill alleged that the plaintiff had advanced to said Caroline and Eugene large sums of money (the particulars of which were set forth) upon the faith and credit of her sole and separate estate, and had received their promissory note therefor, by the terms of which she "charges her separate estate with the payment of this note," and upon which the sum of $ 20,950, with interest from November 26, 1879, was still due that the estate of Caroline, which she had so charged with the payment of the debt to the plaintiff, consisted of a life interest in a legacy left in trust for her benefit under the will of her father, Ralph Lester, of Rochester in the county of Monroe and State of New York, (a duly certified copy of the probate of which in the Surrogate's Court of that county was annexed to and made part of the bill,) by which he appointed his wife, Rhoda Ann Lester, his "sole executrix, without security," and made to her for the benefit of his daughter Caroline the bequest which is printed in the margin, ^[*] and, after sundry other bequests and legacies, provided that, in case of a surplus of his estate after payment of funeral expenses and of all just debts bequests and legacies, "there shall be a pro rata addition to the said bequests and legacies of such surplus;" that Rhoda Ann Lester took out letters testamentary in said Surrogate's Court, "and accepted the trust, and has continued to act as trustee under the terms of said will, though she has never filed any inventory or accounts as executrix, and has never reported to any court in what manner or what sums she has invested under the directions of said will;" that there was so large a surplus of the estate that the principal sum to the income of which Caroline was entitled was about $ 40,000; that Rhoda Ann, with notice of the charge created by Caroline on her said estate in favor of the plaintiff, and colluding with her and her husband to evade the operation and satisfaction of her obligation to the plaintiff, and in fraud of his rights, had continued, and declared her intention to continue, to make payments to Caroline on account of the income thereof.

"Under these circumstances, and considering further the fact that said Rhoda Ann Lester is under no bond for the faithful administration of her trust," the bill prayed for process, discovery, an injunction, a receiver, an account, payment of the income of the life estate of Caroline to the plaintiff until his claim be wholly discharged and satisfied, and for further relief.

The defendant Rhoda Ann Lester demurred to the bill, for want of equity and for want of jurisdiction; upon a hearing before Lord, J., the demurrer was sustained, and the bill dismissed, with costs; and the plaintiff appealed to the full court.

Decree affirmed.

J. C. Hammond, (C. Delano with him,) for the defendant.

A. H. Taylor of Maryland, (D. W. Bond with him,) for the plaintiff.

Gray, C. J. Lord & Devens, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Gray, C. J.

This bill is brought against Caroline Mitkiewicz, her husband Eugene Mitkiewicz, and Rhoda Ann Lester, to subject to the payment of a debt alleged to be due to the plaintiff from Mrs. Mitkiewicz her equitable interest in the income of a fund held in trust under the will of her father, Ralph Lester, by the defendant Rhoda Ann Lester. All the parties to the suit reside in Baltimore in the State of Maryland, except the defendant Lester; and it is contended that her residence in this Commonwealth sustains the jurisdiction of this court over the bill.

But the difficulty is, that she does not hold the fund by virtue of a trust created by instrument inter partes and without judicial decree, and which, therefore, might be enforced against her wherever she might be found. Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch 148, 160. Perry on Trusts, § 70.

The bill shows that Ralph Lester's will was admitted to probate in a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the State of New York, where he resided at the time of his death, and that the defendant Lester was there appointed executrix and accepted the trust, although she has never filed in court any inventory or account as executrix or trustee. It does not show that the will has ever been proved or recorded in this Commonwealth, or that any letters testamentary or of administration or trusteeship have been issued here. The trust on which the property is held by her having been created by judicial decree of a court of another State having jurisdiction of the matter, she is accountable in the courts of that State for the due execution of the trust; and, by the decisions and the settled practice of this court, the trust cannot be enforced in this Commonwealth, although the trustee personally resides here. Campbell v. Sheldon, 13 Pick. 8. Campbell v. Wallace, 10 Gray 162. Chase v. Chase, 2 Allen 101, 104. Smith v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 14 Allen 336, 342. See also Curtis v. Smith, 6 Blatchf. C. C. 537, 550, 551; Same v. Same, 60 Barb. 9.

The case does not differ in principle from that of an executor or administrator appointed in another State, who is not responsible in this Commonwealth for assets received here, if he has not here taken out letters of administration, nor for assets received in the other State, even if he has taken out ancillary administration in this Commonwealth. Vaughan v. North up, 15 Pet. 1. Fay v. Haven, 3 Met. 109. Norton v. Palmer, 7...