Morrison v. Hass

• Decision Date: 28 February 1918
• Citation: 118 N.E. 893,229 Mass. 514
• Parties: MORRISON v. HASS (two cases). SAME v. FLAMMER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

229 Mass. 514

118 N.E. 893

MORRISON

v.HASS (two cases).

SAME

v.FLAMMER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

Feb. 28, 1918.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Norfolk County; William Cushing Wait, Judge.

Actions for conversion by Frank W. Morrison, as administrator of the estate of Mary D. Hass, against John D. Hass, Alma M. Hass, and Charles A. Flammer. There was a finding for defendants, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Arthur E. Seagrave, of Boston, Holton Davenport, of Worcester, and Frank W. Morrison, of Whitinsville, for plaintiff.

Warner, Stackpole & Bradlee, of Boston (Hibbard & Hibbard, of Pittsfield, of counsel), for defendants.

DE COURCY, J.

Mary D. Hass died on September 22, 1910; the defendants John D. Hass and Alma M. Hass are her children, and the sole beneficiaries under her will. She was a resident of West Stockbridge in this Commonwealth, and owned property located in New York and in Massachusetts. A large portion of her estate consisted of her interest under the will of her husband, John D. Hass, Sr., which had been probated in New York State; and she, as executrix, was carrying out the administration of his estate at the time of her death.

The original will of Mrs. Hass was filed and admitted to probate in the Surrogate's Court for the County and State of New York, and letters testamentary were issued to said John D. Hass-he being the only one of the executors named in the will to qualify. He proceeded with the settlement of her estate, took possession of all her personal property including her interest in the estate of her husband (having completed the administration of that estate), and including also the personal estate located in this Commonwealth, and filed an inventory in the Surrogate's Court. Before April 1, 1911, he had paid all known debts of said testatrix and the expenses of administration, and had distributed the estate in accordance with the terms of her will. At that time he also, as administrator with the will annexed, had distributed the personal estate of John D. Hass, Sr.

On November 30, 1914, the Probate Court of Berkshire County appointed the plaintiff, Frank W. Morrison, administrator of the estate of Mary D. Hass, on a petition filed in March, 1912, by the Tax Commissioner. The plaintiff, on February 3, 1915, made a demand on each of the defendants that he (or she) ‘deliver up to the plaintiff as administrator all of the property of Mary D. Hass to which the plaintiff was entitled and which was in their possession.’

In addition to the foregoing facts, it is agreed that the plaintiff knew of no unpaid debts of Mary D. Hass, at the date of his appointment or when this action was brought, unless any inheritance taxes that might be assessed could be considered debts. See Boston v. Turner, 201 Mass. 190, 87 N. E. 634. An inventory of the estate was filed with the Tax Commissioner by the defendant John D. Hass on May 12, 1915, and the commissioner fixed a valuation on the estate, in accordance with the statutes; but said defendant has never received any valuation from the commissioner, and no tax has been assessed thereon. No bill for a Massachusetts inheritance tax has been rendered to any of the defendants.

These actions were brought by the plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Mary D. Hass, to recover for alleged conversion of certain personal property that was owned by her. In the case of John D. Hass the acts relied on are his taking possession and control of the property, already referred to, as executor under the will of his mother and as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of his father. The defendant Alma M. Hass is charged with conversion because, with the authority of said executor, she removed certain household furniture and other personal property to New York, and received payments of income from her mother's estate, paid by John D. Hass as executor or trustee of her mother's will probated in New York. The alleged conversion by the defendant Flammer consists of his possession, during the summer of 1914, of a key to a New York safe deposit vault containing securities belonging to said Mary D. Hass. He never used the key to open said vault and it does not appear that he had possession of it at the time of the demand. He also turned over to John D. Hass as executor certain interest received by him on a mortgage owned by Mary D. Hass at the time of her death.

The three cases were tried together in the superior court on an agreed statement of facts. The judge refused to give any of the numerous rulings requested by the plaintiff, and found for the defendants; and the cases are here on his exceptions. A single bill of exceptions is used, as the same questions of law are involved in all the cases.

In view of the agreed fact that Mary D. Hass died domiciled in West Stockbridge in this Commonwealth, the primary proof of her will presumably should have been in our county of Berkshire. But the Surrogate's Court of New York also had jurisdiction to admit her will to probate, as she owned bonds of New York corporations, a New York mortgage bond, and an interest...