Lewis v. Parrish
| Decision Date | 15 April 1902 |
| Docket Number | 101. |
| Parties | LEWIS v. PARRISH. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Robt. B. Honeyman, for appellant.
Joseph A. Thompson, for appellee.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.
This is an action in equity brought by the receiver of an insolvent national bank to recover an assessment made by the comptroller of the currency against one Hardin Parrish as a stockholder of the bank. The defendant is the executor of the last will and testament of Hardin Parrish, and is not sued as an executor, but individually. There was a decree for the complainant for the amount of the assessment, and the defendant has appealed.
The liability of the defendant's testator for the amount of the assessment is not challenged by the assignments of error consequently we shall not examine the record to see if that liability was established by the proofs. Upon the question of the defendant's liability to account, the case disclosed by the record rests wholly upon the pleadings, no proofs having been introduced by either party. It appears by the bill and answer that the testator died in July, 1897; that his will was admitted to probate in the city of Philadelphia that the defendant was by that will appointed an executor and sole legatee; that the defendant took possession of the estate; and that at the time of the commencement of the action (in 1898) he had not filed an account thereof. The record does not show when the will was proved, nor the value of the estate of the decedent, nor whether there were any debts except the disputed claim in suit, or that there are or ever have been any assets of the estate within this state and no evidence was offered in respect to these facts. The bill of complaint does not allege or suggest that the defendant has been guilty of any misconduct as executor, except that he has taken possession of the estate and not accounted therefor, and contains no averment or suggestion of any facts to denote that the complainant has not a plain and adequate remedy by resorting to the probate court and compelling the defendant to account. We are at a loss to understand upon what considerations the decree proceeded, no opinion having been rendered by the court below upon the decision of the cause.
An executor or administrator is exclusively bound to account for all the assets which he receives under and by virtue of his administration to the proper tribunals of the government under which he derives his authority. The tribunals of other states have no right to interfere with, or control the application of, those assets according to the lex loci. Hence it has become an established doctrine that an administrator or executor is not liable to be sued in that capacity in the courts of another state by any creditor for any debt due there by the intestate. Vaughan v. Northrup, 15 Pet. 1, 10 L.Ed. 639. It has been held, however, by the courts of New York, that when a foreign representative comes into the jurisdiction of the court, bringing with him assets of the foreign appointment, a bill in equity will lie against him to account therefor, where, but for the interference of a court of equity, there would manifestly be a failure of justice. Brown v. Brown, 1 Barb.Ch. 189; McNamara v. Dwyer, 7 Paige, 239, 32 Am.Dec. 627. Respecting this jurisdiction Chancellor Walworth said, -n Brown v. Brown, 1 Barb.Ch.217:
'It is sufficient to say that where this court interferes, in special cases of that or a similar character, it proceeds upon the principle that wherever there is a right there ought to be a remedy, either in this or some other tribunal, and where no remedy exists elsewhere to enforce the right this court will furnish such remedy, whenever it is necessary to prevent a total failure of justice, where the property in controversy, or the person of the wrongdoer, is within the jurisdiction and control of the court.'
Manifestly the present case is without any special features to justify the cognizance of a court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desjardins v. Desjardins, 14582
...of an estate was unwarranted in the absence of a devastavit. Smith v. Chapman, 93 U.S. 41, 43, 23 L.Ed. 795, 796; Lewis v. Parrish, 115 F. 285, 288 (C.A.2, 1902). Kentucky likewise follows the rule that in the absence of waste, fraud, or mismanagement of an estate the administrator or execu......
-
Thorburn v. Gates
... ... Justice Story thought it unnecessary to cite ... much authority upon the point. Vaughan v. Northrup, ... 15 Pet. 1, 5, 10 L.Ed. 639; Lewis v. Parrish, 115 F ... 285, 53 C.C.A. 77. The doctrine implies that the devolution ... of both rights and obligations, effected by the ... ...
-
Benker v. Meyer
...jurisdiction. Vaughan v. Northup, 15 Pet. 1, 10 L.Ed. 639; Mellus v. Thompson, 1 Cliff. (U.S.) 125, Fed. Cas. No. 9,405; Lewis v. Parrish, 53 C.C.A. 77, 115 F. 285; Burton v. Williams, 63 Neb. 431, 88 N.W. Whatever power or authority an administrator may exercise outside of the state of his......
-
Lawrence v. Southern Pac. Co.
... ... a cause of action in the federal court in which jurisdiction ... is based upon citizenship. Lewis v. Parrish, 115 F ... 285, 53 C.C.A. 77; Skiff v. White (C.C.) 127 F. 175 ... Nor can a suit be revived against executors in some state ... ...