McGregor v. McGregor
| Decision Date | 02 January 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 4519.,4519. |
| Citation | 201 F.2d 528 |
| Parties | McGREGOR et al. v. McGREGOR. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
W. J. Rutledge, Jr., Durango, Colo. (Bradford & McDaniel, Durango, Colo, on the brief), for appellants.
Grant E. McGee, Denver, Colo. (Karl C. Brauns, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
Herbert McGregor and Augusta McGregor Davidson1 brought this action against Lillie Wise McGregor2 in the District Court of La Plata County, Colorado. The action was duly removed to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. In their amended complaint the plaintiffs set up three claims. In their first claim they alleged that Colin H. McGregor3 died at Lake Charles, Louisiana on November 24, 1949, seised and possessed of property of a value in excess of $160,000; that the defendant is the surviving wife of the decedent; that Herbert McGregor and Augusta McGregor Davidson are surviving brother and sister, respectively, of the decedent; that the decedent by his true last will bequeathed to Herbert McGregor $50,000 and to Augusta McGregor Davidson $25,000; that on November 28, 1949, the defendant came into possession of such true last will of the decedent; that thereafter on December 22, 1949, defendant wrongfully and wilfully tendered for probate in the District Court for the Eleventh Judicial District, Vernon Parish, Louisiana, an instrument in writing dated August 16, 1929, purporting to be the last will of the decedent and that such instrument contained no devise or bequest in favor of the plaintiffs, but purported to devise and bequeath all of the property of the decedent to the defendant; that on January 7, 1950, the defendant caused the estate of the decedent to be closed and the possession of all of the property of the decedent to be delivered to the defendant; that "plaintiffs are precluded by the Rules of Evidence of the State of Louisiana pertaining to the proof of testamentary documents, from proving in the Probate Court of that State, the true Last Will and Testament" of decedent; that the plaintiffs are without means or property to travel to the State of Louisiana and there employ counsel and pursue any remedy in the courts of Louisiana; and that by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant in tendering for probate, procuring admission to probate and obtaining possession of all of the property of the decedent under the instrument of August 16, 1929, plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum of $75,000 actual damages.
In their second claim plaintiffs realleged by reference the matters set up in the first claim and further alleged that they were without an adequate and speedy remedy at law.
In their third claim plaintiffs realleged by reference the matters set up in their first claim and further alleged that the defendant is a nonresident of Colorado and is the owner of certain real estate situated in La Plata County, Colorado, particularly described in the third claim.
Plaintiffs prayed for $75,000 actual damages and $75,000 exemplary damages. They further sought a judgment mandatorily enjoining the defendant to probate the true last will of the decedent and to convey to the plaintiffs the properties described in the third claim in lieu of the specific bequests to them in the true last will.
The trial court sustained a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that it failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the action. Plaintiffs have appealed.
Article VII, § 35, of the Constitution of Louisiana, as amended in 1921, provides:
"They (district courts) shall have unlimited and exclusive original jurisdiction * * * in all probate and succession matters * * *."
Article 1644 of Dart's Louisiana Civil Code Annotated, 1932 LSA-C.C. art. 1644, provides:
"No testament can have effect, unless it has been presented to the judge of the parish in which the succession is opened; the judge shall order the execution of the testament after its being opened and proved, in the cases prescribed by law."
A careful examination of the adjudicated cases on the question, which are few in number, leads us to the conclusion that neither relief at law nor in equity may be obtained on account of the destruction or suppression of a will unless it is made to appear that it is impossible to probate such will in the court having jurisdiction of the probate thereof, or unless the plaintiffs have undertaken to probate such will and have failed.4
Article 3542 of Dart's Louisiana Civil Code Annotated, 1932 LSA-C.C. art. 3542, reads:
Under the adjudicated cases in Louisiana, plaintiffs have five years from the date of the order of probate to annul the probate of the instrument of August 16, 1929, and to probate the true last will in the District Court of Louisiana in which the instrument of August 16, 1949, was probated.5 It follows that plaintiffs were not barred by limitation from obtaining relief in the courts of Louisiana. That fact clearly distinguishes the instant case from Morton v. Petitt, 124 Ohio St. 241, 177 N.E. 591, relied on by plaintiffs. There relief in the probate court of Ohio was barred by limitation at the time Petitt brought his action.
The allegation in the amended complaint that plaintiffs are precluded by the rules of evidence of the State of Louisiana from proving the alleged true last will in the courts of that state is nothing more than a conclusion of law. Moreover, in Succession of Clark, 11 La.Ann. 124, the court laid down a very liberal rule on the admission of secondary evidence to establish a basis for the admission of a will to probate.6
It is well settled that a court of equity will not by a mandatory injunction require the performance of a positive act in another jurisdiction.7 It follows that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief by mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to probate the alleged true last will of the decedent in Louisiana.
Affirmed.
1 Hereinafter referred to collectively as the plaintiffs.
2 Hereinafter referred to as defendant.
3 Hereinafter referred to as the decedent.
4 Allen v. Lovell's Adm'x, 303 Ky. 238, 197 S.W.2d 424, 426; Thayer v. Kitchen, 200 Mass, 382, 86 N.E. 952, 953; Sprowl v. Lockett, 109 La. 894, 33 So. 911, 912; R. L. Aylward Coal Co. v. Luyckx, 261 Mich. 394, 246 N.W. 156, 157; Clappier v. Banks, 11 La. 593, 595; Myar v. Mitchell, 72 Ark. 381, 80 S.W. 750; Note, 65 A.L.R. 1119-1121.
In Sprowl v. Lockett, supra, the court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Firestone v. Galbreath
...Maxwell v. Southwest Nat'l Bank, 593 F.Supp. 250 (D.Kan.1984); McGregor v. McGregor, 101 F.Supp. 848 (D.Colo.1951), aff'd, 201 F.2d 528 (10th Cir.1953). See also McMullin v. Borgers, 761 S.W.2d 718 (Mo. App.1988); In re Estate of Hoover, 160 Ill. App.3d 964, 112 Ill.Dec. 382, 513 N.E.2d 991......
-
Markowitz v. Villa
...in original.) Munn v. Briggs, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th 589-91. In McGregor v. McGregor, 101 F.Supp. 848 (D.Colo. 1951), aff'd, 201 F.2d 528 (10th Cir. 1953), plaintiffs were legatees of the decedent, Colin H. McGregor whose last will and testament contained substantial bequests in favor of ea......
-
Estate of Legeas, In re
...Adams v. Adams (1849) 22 Vt. 50; see McGregor v. McGregor (D.Colo.1951) 101 F.Supp. 848 [apparently applying Colorado law], affd. (10th Cir.1953) 201 F.2d 528.) Courts in at least nine other states have given indications that such a cause of action would probably find a favorable reception.......
-
Anderson v. Meadowcroft
...relief. See Moore v. Graybeal, 843 F.2d 706, 710 (3rd Cir.1988); McGregor v. McGregor, 101 F.Supp. 848 (D.Colo.1951), aff'd, 201 F.2d 528 (10th Cir.1953); Benedict v. Smith, 34 Conn.Sup. 63, 376 A.2d 774 (Conn.Super.Ct.1977); DeWitt, supra; Robinson v. First State Bank of Monticello, 97 Ill......
-
Rule 105 ACTIONS CONCERNING REAL ESTATE.
...by section (f) of this rule that the notice shall expire automatically. McGregor v. McGregor, 101 F. Supp. 848 (D. Colo. 1951), aff'd, 201 F.2d 528 (10th Cir. 1953). Damages for filing in suit maliciously brought. If a suit is brought maliciously and without probable cause, and notice of li......
-
Tortious Interference With Inheritance
...Cir. 1999). See also Peffer v. Bennett, 523 F.2d 1323 (10th Cir. 1975). [3]McGregor v. McGregor, 101 F.Supp. 848 (D.Colo. 1951), aff’d 201 F.2d 528 (10th Cir. 1953). [4]Id. [5]Id. at 850. [6]McMullin v. Borgers, 761 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Mo.App. 1988). [7]In re Estate of Hoover, 513 N.E.2d 991 (......
-
Chapter 53 - § 53.18 • TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE
...(10th Cir. 1975). The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in McGregor v. McGregor, 101 F. Supp. 848 (D. Colo. 1951), aff'd, 201 F.2d 528 (10th Cir. 1953), also recognized the tort in a diversity case, without citation to any Colorado case law. § 53.18.1—Exhaustion of Probate Re......
-
Chapter 53 - § 53.18 • TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE
...(10th Cir. 1975). The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in McGregor v. McGregor, 101 F. Supp. 848 (D. Colo. 1951), aff'd, 201 F.2d 528 (10th Cir. 1953), also recognized the tort in a diversity case, without citation to any Colorado case law. § 53.18.1—Exhaustion of Probate Re......