New England Mutual Life Ins Co v. Woodworth
Decision Date | 31 March 1884 |
Citation | 4 S.Ct. 364,28 L.Ed. 379,111 U.S. 138 |
Parties | NEW ENGLAND MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. v. WOODWORTH, Adm'r, etc |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Dwight Foster, Alfred D. Foster, and Geo. F. Hoar, for plaintiff in error.
J. S. Lothrop, for defendant in error.
The New England Mutual Life Insurance Company, a corporation of the state of Massachusetts, issued a policy of life insurance, on September 21, 1869, by which, for a consideration received from Ann E. Woodworth, of Detroit, in the state of Michigan, described as 'the assured in this policy,' and of an annual premium to be paid, it agreed to pay, at its office in Boston, the amount of $5,000, 'to the assured under this policy as aforesaid, her executors, administrators, or assigns, in sixty days after presentation of satisfactory proof of the death of said Ann E. Woodworth, for the benefit of her husband, S. E. Woodworth, if he shall survive her.' The policy was signed by the president of the company, but was not under seal. The proof referred to was to be furnished at the Boston office.
On the tenth of January, 1877, letters of administration were granted by the county court of the county of Champaign, in the state of Illinois, on the estate of Ann E. Woodworth. The letters ran in the name of the people of the state of Illinois, and recited: 'Whereas, Ann E. Woodworth, of the county of Seneca and state of New York, died intestate, as it is said, on or about the twenty-fifth day of October, A. D. 1875, having, at the time of her decease, personal property in this state, which may be lost, destroyed, or diminished in value if special care be not taken of the same;' and then proceeded: 'To the end, therefore, that the said property may be collected and preserved for those who shall appear to have a legal right or interest therein, we do hereby appoint Stephen E. Woodworth, of the county of Champaign and state of Illinois, administrator of all and singular the goods and chattels, rights and credits, which were of the said Ann E. Woodworth at the time of her decease, with full power and authority to secure and collect the said property and debts, wheresoever the same may be found in this state, and in general to do and perform all other acts which now are or hereafter may be required of him by law.'
On the eleventh of February, 1878, Stephen E. Woodworth, as administrator of the estate of Ann E. Woodworth, deceased, commenced an action at law, in a court of the state of Illinois, against the company, on the policy, to recover the $5,000 named therein. The summons was served on the company in Cook county, Illinois, by reading and by delivering a copy thereof to one Cronkhite, 'attorney for service of legal process' of the company in the state of Illinois, on the twentieth of February, 1878, the president thereof not being found in the county.
The declaration states that the plaintiff is 'Stephen E Woodworth, who sues as the administrator of the estate of Ann E. Woodworth, deceased, for the benefit and use of S. E. Woodworth.' It avers that said Ann E. Woodworth died October 21, 1875, at Seneca Falls, New York; 'that the said Stephen E. Woodworth, for whose use and benefit this suit is brought, is the said S. E. Woodworth mentioned in the said policy of insurance as the husband of the said Ann E. Woodworth, and the same party for whose benefit the said defendant contracted and agreed, in said policy of insurance, to pay the said sum specified therein; that the said Ann E. Woodworth was, at the time of the making, executing, and delivering the said policy of insurance as aforesaid, the wife of the said Stephen E. Woodworth, and that they were at the said time living together as lawful husband and wife, and that, at the time of the decease of the said Ann E. Woodworth as aforesaid, she left her surviving her said husband, the said Stephen E. Woodworth, who since her death has been a resident of the county of Champaign, state of Illinois;' and that the plaintiff was duly appointed such administrator by said letters. The declaration contained three special counts and money counts in assumpsit.
The defendant petitioned for the removal of the suit into the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Illinois. It stated, in the petition, that it was, at the time of the commencement of this suit, and still is, 'a foreign corporation duly incorporated under and by the laws of the state of Massachusetts and doing business in that state,' and had and still has its principal office or place of business at Boston; that the plaintiff was and is a citizen of Illinois; and 'that it was served with process of summons herein' on February 20, 1878, the service being on said Cronkhite, 'its general agent at Chicago, in the said state of Illinois.' The state court allowed the removal.
Issue being joined, the case was tried before a jury, which found for the plaintiff and assessed his damages at $5,348.73, for which amount, with costs, judgment was entered. The defendant has sued out a writ of error. There is a bill of exceptions, the whole of which is as follows
Mr. Alfred D. Foster and Mr. George F. Hoar, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 141-142 intentionally omitted] Mr. J. S. Lathrop and Mr. Geo. W. Gere for defendant in error.
It is contended for the plaintiff in error that the county court which granted the letters of administration had no power to do so, unless property belonging to Ann E. Woodworth when she died was left by her within the jurisdiction of that court; that she was not domiciled in Illinois at the time of her death, and therefore it was necessary that assets belonging to her should have existed in that state at that time, to warrant jurisdiction to issue the letters, and it could not be obtained by bringing into the state afterwards property which which was hers when she died; that, on the facts in the case, the debt of the company to her was not property of hers in Illinois when she died, even if the policy was in Illinois when she died; and that such a debt was a simple contract debt and was local assets only at Boston, which was the only domicile of the debtor. The letters of administration state that Ann E. Woodworth had, at the time of her decease, personal property in the state of Illinois. The plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schultz v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...Alameda County. * * * [A] debt will be regarded as an asset wherever the debtor is subject to suit. New England Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Woodworth, 111 U.S. 138, 4 S.Ct. 364, 28 L.Ed. 379; Equitable Life Assurance Soc. v. Vogel's Executrix, 76 Ala. 441, 52 Am.Rep. 344; see 23 Minn.L.Rev. 221......
-
Gold Issue Min. & Mill. Co. v. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co.
...Ed. 987; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 603, 19 Sup. Ct. 308, 43 L. Ed. 569, and the New England Life Insurance Co. v. Woodworth, 111 U. S. 138, 4 Sup. Ct. 364, 28 L. Ed. 379, and the same process of reasoning used by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Old Wayne and ......
-
Mooney v. Buford & George Mfg. Co.
......v. Estill, 147 U.S. 591, 13. Sup.Ct. 444; Insurance Co. v. Woodworth, 111 U.S. 138, 4 Sup.Ct. 364; Reyer v. Association (Mass.) 32. N.E. ......
-
Lohman v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
......497; Vidal v. South American. Sec. Co., 276 F. 868; New England etc. Co. v. Woodworth, 111 U.S. 138; Beal v. Carpenter, 235. Fed. (C. ......
-
THE CASE OF THE DISHONEST SCRIVENER: GOUVERNEUR MORRIS AND THE CREATION OF THE FEDERALIST CONSTITUTION.
...power derivable from the Vesting Clause."). (365.) Madison, supra note 363, at 55, 62-63. (366.) 272 U.S. 52 (1926). (367.) Myers, 111 U.S. at 138. (368.) (369.) 487 U.S. 654,697 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). (370.) Morrison, 487 U.S. at 697-98. (371.) Memorandum from John C. Yoo, Deputy......