Michigan Trust Co. v. Chaffee, Civil No. 173.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1942
• Docket Number: Civil No. 173.
• Citation: 44 F. Supp. 848
• Parties: MICHIGAN TRUST CO. et al. v. CHAFFEE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota

44 F. Supp. 848

MICHIGAN TRUST CO. et al. v. CHAFFEE.

Civil No. 173.

District Court, D. North Dakota, N. E. D.

April 2, 1942.

O. B. Burtness and H. D. Shaft, both of Grand Forks, N. D., for plaintiffs.

Philip R. Bangs, of Grand Forks, N. D., for defendant.

VOGEL, District Judge.

Orison Young, hereinafter referred to as the decedent, died on January 24, 1941, at Grand Rapids, Michigan. Some four months prior thereto he had made and executed his last will and testament, designating himself as "of the City of Grand Forks, in the County of Grand Forks and State of North Dakota." Apparently he had maintained his legal residence in North Dakota for many years, but at the time of his death and for several years prior thereto he had lived at Grand Rapids, Michigan. In the decedent's will he nominated and appointed the First National Bank of Grand Forks, Orison Young Chaffee and Carther Jackson, all of Grand Forks, North Dakota, as executors of his will. In the will he also provided for a trust and named therein as trustees under his will the First National Bank of Grand Forks, Orison Young Chaffee and Carther Jackson, all of Grand Forks, North Dakota, being the same corporation and persons designated as executors. Subsequent to the decedent's death his will was admitted to probate in the County Court of Grand Forks County, North Dakota, and the above named were appointed as domiciliary executors. Thereafter an ancillary proceeding was had in the State of Michigan, and in said proceeding the Probate Court of the County of Kent, in the State of Michigan, appointed the Michigan Trust Company, a corporation, and Marion L. Young, plaintiffs herein, coadministrators cum testamento annexo of the decedent's estate. At the time of his death the decedent had in his personal possession in the State of Michigan promissory notes exceeding the sum of $3,000, payable to the decedent, and signed by O. Young Chaffee, the defendant herein, and who is one of those named in the decedent's will as executors and trustees.

The plaintiffs in this action have brought suit in this Court against the defendant, O. Young Chaffee, on the promissory notes referred to, alleging diversity of citizenship and other jurisdictional necessities.

The defendant moves to dismiss the action on the grounds (1) that the complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted, (2) for the reason that plaintiffs have not legal capacities to sue and are not the real parties in interest, (3) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, (4) that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, and (5) that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

The general rule is that Federal Courts in one state will not take jurisdiction over suits brought by executors and administrators appointed in another state unless there be some statutory authority therefor in the state of the Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiffs, however, rely upon Chapter 212, Session Laws of 1927, State of North Dakota, which provides as follows: "Any foreign executor, administrator or guardian may commence and prosecute or defend a civil action or proceeding in this state, in his representative capacity, in the same manner and under the same restrictions as in case of a resident; provided, that before commencing or defending such action he shall file an authenticated copy of his appointment as such executor, administrator or guardian in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of the County in which such action is to be or has been commenced."

Plaintiffs also contend that the promissory notes in question, being in the personal possession of the decedent at the time of his death in Michigan, should be handled in the ancillary probate proceedings in Michigan, and that they, having physical possession of the notes, are the ones and the only ones to commence suit thereon. American Law Institute Restatement, Conflict of Laws, § 479.

The defendant contends that the proper ones to commence suit and enforce payment on the promissory notes are the domiciliary executors in North Dakota, pointing out that the proceedings in...