Rice v. Houston, Administrator
| Decision Date | 01 December 1871 |
| Citation | 80 U.S. 66,13 Wall. 66,20 L.Ed. 484 |
| Parties | RICE v. HOUSTON, ADMINISTRATOR |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; the case being thus:
A. W. Vanleer, a citizen of Tennessee, having died at Nashville, letters of administration were granted by the proper authority there to one Houston, on his estate. It seemed to be admitted by counsel that, at this time, Houston was a citizen of Tennessee. But he afterwards, it was equally admitted, was in Kentucky and domiciled there. Thus domiciled he brought two suits in the court below, the Circuit Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to recover from Rice on certain notes given to his decedent, Vanleer. In these suits he described himself in his narr. as 'a citizen of the State of Kentucky and administrator of the estate of A. W. Vanleer, deceased.' The defendant craved oyer of the letters. This disclosing that the letters were granted in Tennessee, the defendant pleaded that 'by the said letters of administration it appears that the administrator of the estate of the said A. W. Vanleer is the creature of the law of Tennessee, and has no existence as such outside of the State of Tennessee.' To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and the demurrer being held good and judgment given for the plaintiff, the defendant brought the case here. The point involved was of course the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.
Mr. R. A. Crawford, for the plaintiff in error:
Of course the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction between citizens of the same State. But here Houston was the domestic administrator, and in point of fact, it will be conceded though not so asserted in the record, a citizen of Tennessee, when he got his letters; he having afterwards removed to Kentucky. Independently of this, since, personally, he is a stranger to the suit, his personal domicil in Kentucky cannot be looked to. By his letters, he represented the sovereignty of Tennessee, regardless of personal alienship.
Messrs. F. B. Fogg and H. Maynard, contra.
The question of jurisdiction is the only point in the case.
Although in controversies between citizens of different States, it is the character of the real and not that of the nominal parties to the record which determines the question of jurisdiction, yet it has been repeatedly held by this court that suits can be maintained in the Circuit Court by executors or administrators if they are citizens of a different State from the party sued, on the ground that they are the real parties in interest, and succeed to all the rights of the testator or intestate by operation of law. And it makes no difference that the testator or intestate was a citizen of the same State with the defendants, and could not, if alive, have sued in the Federal courts; nor is the status of the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Sperling
...L.Ed. 380; Blake v. McKim, 1880, 103 U.S. 336, 26 L.Ed. 563; Amory v. Amory, 1877, 95 U.S. 186, 24 L.Ed. 428; Rice v. Houston, Adm'r, 1871, 13 Wall. 66, 80 U.S. 66, 21 L.Ed. 484; cf. Jeffcott v. Donovan, 9 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d Subject to the exception that diversity jurisdiction can be acqu......
-
Stone v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...pointed out in that case--which makes the distinction --he is not a mere figurehead or nominal party, but is an interested party. (Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66.) So also, the citizenship of an administrator and not that of his beneficiary governs. (Harper v. Railroad, 36 F. 102; Goff v. Rai......
-
State ex rel. Thompson v. Terte
... ... Stat. 1406); Snow v. Thompson, 178 S.W.2d 796; ... Davis v. Lathrop, 12 F. 353; Rice v ... Houston, 13 Wall. 66; Knapp v. Railroad, 20 ... Wall. 177; Barber v. Powell, 135 F.2d ... ...
-
New York Evening Post Co. v. Chaloner
...courts, jurisdiction would not be defeated by the fact that the parties whom they represent were disqualified. And see Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66, 20 L.Ed. 484; Bonnafee v. Williams, 3 How. 574, 577, 11 L.Ed. The applicability of the rule does not depend upon whether title is or is not in......