Potter v. First Nat. Bank of Morristown
| Decision Date | 10 October 1930 |
| Parties | POTTER v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF MORRISTOWN et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Syllabus by the Court.
Equity will interfere to protect the assets of a decedent's estate from waste or loss, at the suit of interested parties, until letters of administration can be obtained. Conserving the assets for lawful administration is an approved function.
Syllabus by the Court.
Assets of a foreign decedent in this state are vested in the domiciliary executors with right of possession in them unless resident creditors have intervened and taken out letters for their protection. Syllabus by the Court.
The right to recover in an action of tort arising in another state is governed by the laws of that state and is not one under our statute "which by the laws of this State survives against the personal representation of parties deceased."
Additional Syllabus by Editoriul Staff.
Suit by Mary E. Potter against the First National Bank of Morristown and others. On complainant's motion for injunction pendente lite and defendants' motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity.
Injunction denied, and bill struck out.
Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City, for complainant.
George Whitefield Betts, Jr., of New York City, Harley Cox & Walburg, of Newark, and King & Vogt, of Morristown, for defendants.
BACKES, Vice Chancellor.
The bill is by a nonresident claimant of a cause for action against a foreign decedent to restrain two of the foreign executors of the decedent's estate from disposing of ten shares of the capital stock of the First National Bank of Morristown belonging to the estate, and to restrain the bank from transferring the same until the complainant can obtain ancillary letters of administration in this state, and the motion is for an injunction pendente lite.
The proofs show that the decedent, Killough, was a resident of Brooklyn, N. Y.; that his will was admitted to probate in Kings county in that state, and that complainant and the two defendants are executors. He left an estate of $3,000,000, of which there was in bank in this state $76,268.07, which the two defendant executors withdrew pending an application by the complainant to the surrogate of Morris county for letters of administration. The surrogate denied the application because the complainant was not a creditor and there were no assets in this state. From this ruling an appeal is pending. Since the denial the ten shares have been discovered, and the complainant intends to make another application for letters of administration and renew the one denied, and she fears a withdrawal of the shares from the state before she can be heard. The complainant's claim against the estate is for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned by the negligent driving of an automobile by the deceased in which she was a guest. The accident happened in Vermont and resulted in the death of the decedent. The complainant is a resident of New York and she has filed a claim with the domiciliary executors.
Equity will interfere to protect the assets of a decedent's estate from waste or loss, at the suit of interested parties, until letters of administration can be obtained. Conserving the assets for lawful administration is an approved function. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 75 N. J. Eq. 274, 71 A. 745, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 454, 138 Am. St. Rep. 563, 20 Ann. Cas. 91. It will not, however, assert its jurisdiction, and stay domiciliary executors of a foreign estate in their control over assets in this state to assist a foreign claimant, resident of the decedent's domicile, to ancillary letters to enable her to sue in this state, and that obviously is the sole purpose of the bill. True, the statute (Comp. St. 1910, p. 3823, § 29) provides that any claimant may have ancillary letters upon 60-day default by foreign executors or administrators to apply for them, but, as against the asserted right of possession by the foreign representatives, over assets in this state, this, in the light of the common law, must be construed to mean resident claimants. Assets of a foreign decedent in this state are vested...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant v. McAuliffe
...and Muir v. Kessinger, D.C., 35 F.Supp. 116, 117; Orr v. Ahern, Adm'r, 107 Conn. 174, 178-180, 139 A. 691; Potter v. First National Bank, 107 N.J.Eq. 72, 74-75, 151 A. 546, followed in Friedman v. Greenberg, 110 N.J.L. 462, 464-466, 166 A. 119, 87 A.L.R. 849, and Rathgeber v. Sommerhalder, ......
-
Smyth Sales v. Petroleum Heat & Power Co.
...1905, 71 N.J.L. 647, 60 A. 382; Curry v. Delaware L. & W. R. R., Sup.1938, 120 N. J.L. 512, 1 A.2d 14; Potter v. First Nat. Bank of Morristown, Ch.1930, 107 N.J. Eq. 72, 151 A. 546. 3 Barnes v. Starr, 1894, 64 Conn. 136, 150, 28 A. 980, 4 Stanio v. Berner Lohne Co., 1941, 127 Conn. 431, 17 ......
-
Zephyr American Corporation v. Bates Mfg. Co.
...Jersey court would ordinarily be governed by the law of the particular State where the torts were committed. Potter v. First Nat. Bank, Ch., 107 N.J.Eq. 72, 74, 75, 151 A. 546. What that law may be cannot be ascertained, however, until the foreign place of commission of the tort is more spe......
-
In re Fischer's Estate
...is necessary for the payment of the creditors in this state. In re Heinze's Estate, 93 N. J. Eq. 672, 117 A. 628; Potter v. First National Bank, 107 N. J. Eq. 72, 151 A. 546. Since the established fact is that decedent's domicile was New York, the letters issued by this court in September, ......