Michigan Trust Company v. Edward Ferry, Nos. 200 and 201

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcKenna
Citation228 U.S. 346,33 S.Ct. 550,57 L.Ed. 867
PartiesMICHIGAN TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. EDWARD P. FERRY
Docket NumberNos. 200 and 201
Decision Date21 April 1913

228 U.S. 346
33 S.Ct. 550
57 L.Ed. 867
MICHIGAN TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner,

v.

EDWARD P. FERRY.

Nos. 200 and 201.
Argued March 20, 1913.
Decided April 21, 1913.

Page 347

Messrs. Willard F. Keeney, charles S. Thomas, Edward B. Critchlow, Henry C. Hall, Walter I. Lillie for petitioner.

Messrs. George Sutherland, Franklin S. Richards, and Edward Stewart Ferry for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 347-351 intentionally omitted]

Page 351

Mr. Jsutice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

These are suits brought in the circuit court for the district of Utah upon decrees of the probate court of Ottawa, Michigan. The defendant demurred to the complaints, the circuit court sustained the demurrers, and

Page 352

gave judgments for the defendant, and these judgments were affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 99 C. C. A. 221, 235, 175 Fed. 667, 681. A short statement of the facts alleged at great length in the complaints will be enough.

William M. Ferry died in 1867, domiciled in Ottawa county, Michigan. His will was proved, and the defendant, Edward P. Ferry, was appointed executor by the Ottawa probate court, qualified and entered upon his duties. In 1878 he removed to Utah, and becoming incompetent, was put under the guardianship of two sons, W. Mont Ferry and Edward S. Ferry, in 1892. In 1903 residuary legatees and devisees petitioned the Michigan probate court that the defendant be removed from his office of executor, that he be ordered to account for the unadministered residue of the estate, and that the Michigan Trust Company be appointed administrator de bonis non with the will annexed. Notice of the petition and time and place of the hearing was given by publication and also was given to the defendant and his guardians personally in Utah. The guardians, by order of the Utah court, appeared and asked for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, which was made, and an answer and cross petition praying for affirmative relief were filed. Lawyers were retained and paid out of the defendant's estate by order of the Utah court. There were various proceedings, the end of which was that the plaintiff was appointed administrator de bonis non, the cross petition was denied, and it was decreed that the defendant was indebted to the estate for $1,220,473.41. The defendant being entitled to one fourth of the above sum as residuary legatee, he was declared liable for $915,355.08, and ordered to pay it over within sixty days to the Michigan Trust Company. The defendant also had been appointed by the same court executor under his mother's will, and after proceedings like those that we have described was declared

Page 353

liable for $16,458.81, which, too, he was ordered to pay to the plaintiff within sixty days.

Ordinarily jurisdiction over a person is based on the power of the sovereign asserting it to seize that person and imprison him to await the sovereign's pleasure. But when that power exists and is asserted by service at the beginning of a cause, or if the party submits to the jurisdiction in whatever form may be required, we dispense with the necessity of maintaining the physical power, and attribute the same force to the judgment or decree whether the party remain within the jurisdiction or not. This is one of the decencies of civilization that no one would dispute. It applies to article 4, § 1, of the Constitution, so that if a judicial proceeding is begun with jurisdiction over the person of the party concerned, it is within the power of a state to bind him by every subsequent order in the cause. Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 195, 203, 204, 16 L. ed. 628, 631, 632. This is true not only of ordinary actions, but of proceedings like the present. It is within the power of a state to make the whole administration of the estate a single proceeding, to provide that one who has undertaken it within the jurisdiction shall be subject to the order of the court in the matter until the administration is closed by distribution, and, on the same principle, that he shall be required to account for and distribute all that he receives,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
99 practice notes
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...ex rel. v. Billings, 55 Minn. 467; Railroad v. Fairchild, 224 U.S. 510; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385; Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferrv. 228 U.S. 346; State ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 304 Mo. 607; Hickman v. Kansas City, 120 Mo. 110; Markowitz v. Kansas City, 125 Mo. 485; McGrew v. Railroad, 23......
  • DiRusso v. DiRusso, V--A
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1968
    ...556, 90 L.Ed. 635; Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 454, 52 S.Ct. 238, 76 L.Ed. 389; Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346, 33 S.Ct. 550, 57 L.Ed. 867, but defendant husband admits having received [55 Misc.2d 844] the summons, bill of review and attachments served ......
  • Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Catlettsburg, Ky., v. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Ohio
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
    • October 14, 1922
    ...what I have to say as to the concrete things decided by the Supreme Court in these 25 cases. In the case of Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346, 33 Sup.Ct. 550, 57 L.Ed. 867, it is said: 'Ordinarily jurisdiction over a person is based on the power of the sovereign asserting it to seiz......
  • Brown v. Hughes, Civ. A. No. 5167.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • November 4, 1955
    ...himself), i. e., the acts of the agent are the acts of the principal. Black's Law Dictionary, 1933 Ed.; Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 1913, 228 U.S. 346, at page 353, 33 S. Ct. 550, at page 552, 57 L.Ed. 867, "if the party submits to the jurisdiction in whatever form may be required, we disp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
99 cases
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...ex rel. v. Billings, 55 Minn. 467; Railroad v. Fairchild, 224 U.S. 510; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385; Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferrv. 228 U.S. 346; State ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 304 Mo. 607; Hickman v. Kansas City, 120 Mo. 110; Markowitz v. Kansas City, 125 Mo. 485; McGrew v. Railroad, 23......
  • DiRusso v. DiRusso, V--A
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1968
    ...556, 90 L.Ed. 635; Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 454, 52 S.Ct. 238, 76 L.Ed. 389; Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346, 33 S.Ct. 550, 57 L.Ed. 867, but defendant husband admits having received [55 Misc.2d 844] the summons, bill of review and attachments served ......
  • Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Catlettsburg, Ky., v. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Ohio
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
    • October 14, 1922
    ...what I have to say as to the concrete things decided by the Supreme Court in these 25 cases. In the case of Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346, 33 Sup.Ct. 550, 57 L.Ed. 867, it is said: 'Ordinarily jurisdiction over a person is based on the power of the sovereign asserting it to seiz......
  • Brown v. Hughes, Civ. A. No. 5167.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • November 4, 1955
    ...himself), i. e., the acts of the agent are the acts of the principal. Black's Law Dictionary, 1933 Ed.; Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 1913, 228 U.S. 346, at page 353, 33 S. Ct. 550, at page 552, 57 L.Ed. 867, "if the party submits to the jurisdiction in whatever form may be required, we disp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT