Russell v. Hooker

• Decision Date: 22 November 1895
• Citation: 34 A. 711,67 Conn. 24
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: RUSSELL v. HOOKER et al.

34 A. 711

67 Conn. 24

RUSSELL

v. HOOKER et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 22, 1895.

Case reserved from superior court, Hartford county; Thayer, Judge.

Action by Henry E. Russell, Jr., trustee, against Frank H. Hooker and others, executors of Henry E. Russell, deceased. Testator was a resident of the state of New York, and bequeathed to plaintiff, a resident of Connecticut, 100 shares of stock in a Connecticut corporation, in trust. One of the executors (Prank H. Hooker) was a resident of Connecticut; the other executors being residents of New York, where the will had been probated. The will was also probated in Connecticut, and ancillary letters of administration granted to defendant Hooker. The action was brought to compel a transfer of the shares of stock to plaintiff. On the hearing the case was reserved for the advice of the supreme court Dismissal of complaint advised.

Frank L. Hungerford, for plaintiff.

Samuel A. York, for defendant Hooker.

BALDWIN, J. This action is brought by a citizen of Connecticut against another citizen of Connecticut and two citizens of New York. The defendants are sued as executors of the will of a New York testator, which has been duly admitted to probate in that state. A legacy of 100 shares of stock in a Connecticut corporation was left in the will to the plaintiff, in trust for a citizen of this state, and the ground upon which he rests his action is that this legacy was a specific one. The will under which the plaintiff claims was that of a citizen of New York, and the property bequeathed to him, so far as any question of testamentary succession is concerned, had its situs, in the eye of the law, at the testator's domicile. Marcy v. Marcy, 32 Conn. 308, 319. The executors were bound to inventory and account for it before the proper surrogate's court in that state. This obligation was not affected by the grant of ancillary administration to one of them by a court of probate in this state. He did not include, and ought not to have included, the stock in question in his inventory filed in that court. It was an asset to be administered under the laws of New York, and under those only. If the executors transfer it to the plaintiff, or pay him any dividends which they may have collected on it, they must justify their action in the surrogate's court by which their letters testamentary were issued. The shares of stock which are in controversy in effect are in the possession of that court. It would...