Smith v. Jennings

• Decision Date: 11 December 1916
• Docket Number: 2928.
• Citation: 238 F. 48
• Parties: SMITH et al. v. JENNINGS et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

238 F. 48

SMITH et al. v. JENNINGS et al.

No. 2928.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 11, 1916

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

This is an appeal by the defendants in the court below from two interlocutory orders, made by the District Court on May 1 1916, appointing receivers for the estate of James M. Smith deceased, and enjoining interference with the possession of the receivers of the property and assets of the estate when acquired. James M. Smith died a resident of Oglethorpe county, Ga., intestate, on the 11th day of December, 1915. At the time of his death he was possessed of a large amount of personal and real property, and was operating a large plantation in the county of his residence. He was unmarried and had no direct heirs. Upon the night of the day of his death application was made by his manager, his bookkeeper, a neighbor and the judge of the superior court to the ordinary for temporary letters of administration upon the estate of the intestate. The ordinary granted the temporary letters upon the applicants' giving bond in the sum of $50,000, double the amount of the personal estate, as represented to the ordinary by them. The applicants made their application upon the basis of being creditors of James M. Smith. Their status as creditors is, however, disputed by the plaintiffs in this cause. Subsequently, on December 14, 1915, two additional temporary administrators were appointed by the ordinary, on the request of certain of the defendants, who alleged themselves to be heirs and next of kin to the decedent. Upon their appointment and qualification, the temporary administrators took possession of the assets of the estate, and were in possession at the time of the filing of the bill of complaint in this cause, and are in possession still. Subsequently, and before the making of the orders appealed from by the District Court, the temporary administrators gave a new bond in the sum of $1,000,000, with sufficient surety. The personal assets of the estate were many times in excess of what they were represented to the ordinary as being, when he first appointed the temporary administrators. Application was made by three of the temporary administrators for permanent letters to the court of ordinary of Oglethorpe county, and on this application a citation was issued and published, returnable on the first Monday of February, 1916. Various caveats were thereafter lodged with the ordinary against this application. The hearing on the citation and the caveats was pending and undisposed of when the bill of complaint in this case was filed. Certain claimants filed a bill in the superior court of the Cherokee circuit of Georgia on February 23, 1916, asking the appointment of receivers of the estate, and seeking to enjoin the temporary administrators from interference with the assets, and an order to that effect was made by that court. After this order had been modified by a newly appointed judge of the superior court, by directing the receivers not to take possession, the complainants dismissed their bill in the state court. Various irregularities and acts in excess of their legal powers are charged in the bill of complaint in this cause to have been committed by the temporary administrators in the administration of their office, but it is not shown by the record that the assets of the estate were being wasted or dissipated by the temporary administrators.

This was the situation of the estate when the bill of complaint in this cause was filed by the plaintiffs on March 2, 1916. The plaintiffs claimed to be the children of Nancy Smith, by her husband, William H. Kimbrell, and that James M. Smith was an illegitimate child of Nancy Smith, born before her marriage to Kimbrell. The purpose of the bill, as shown by its prayer, was to enjoin the applicants for permanent letters of administration and the caveators from proceeding in the court of ordinary of Oglethorpe county, and the ordinary from making such appointment; for appointment of receivers under the bill, to take charge of the estate and hold it under the orders of the District Court; that the temporary administrators be enjoined from interfering with the receivers, when appointed; that all persons claiming any demand against the estate be required to intervene and set up such demand; that all persons claiming to be heirs at law of James M. Smith be required to intervene in the bill and set up their respective claims, so that one final decree might be rendered settling all questions; that the receivers be authorized by orders of the District Court to pay debts due by the estate; that the plaintiffs be decreed to be the true heirs and next of kin of James M. Smith and entitled to the assets, after payment of debts; and for general relief. Upon the filing of the bill, the District Judge made an order temporarily restraining the administrators from changing the status of the estate, except to collect and preserve the assets, until further order of the court, and directing the defendants to show cause on the first Monday of April, 1916, why an injunction should not be granted and a receiver appointed as prayed in the bill. Pending the hearing the defendants answered the bill, and numerous other claimants intervened therein and filed cross-bills, for the purpose of asserting their alleged interests in the estate. When the rule to show cause came on to be heard, evidence was submitted by all parties, and the court thereupon entered the orders, from which this appeal is taken, appointing receivers of the estate and assets of the intestate and enjoining the temporary administrators from interfering with their possession. From these orders an appeal was allowed by this court, and a supersedeas granted by it on application of the defendants to the bill, in May, 1916, after a hearing. The appeal now comes on for final disposition.

Alex C. King and John L. Tye, both of Atlanta, Ga., Samuel H. Sibley, of Union Point, Ga., Horace M. Holden, Howell C. Erwin, and Hamilton McWhorter, all of Athens, Ga., E. F. Noel, of Lexington, Miss., and King & Spalding, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.

J. S. James and J. R. Bedgood, both of Atlanta, Ga., E. H. Calloway, of Augusta, Ga., John J. Strickland, E. K. Lumpkin, and Stephen C. Upson, all of Athens, Ga., F. H. Colley, of Washington, Ga., H. H. Perry and W. A. Charters, both of Gainesville, Ga., Wm. M. Howard, of Augusta, Ga., Thomas J. Shackelford and Henry S. West, both of Athens, Ga., Homer Sutton, of Cornelios, Ga., and Stanhope Erwin, of Clarksville, Ga., for appellees.

Before PARDEE and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.

GRUBB District Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The solution of the question presented by the appeal depends upon the extent of the jurisdiction of a United States District Court, sitting in equity, over the general administration of the estates of decedents, in cases where a state court of general jurisdiction in matters of probate has already acquired jurisdiction of the estate. That the courts of the United States, sitting in equity, have no general jurisdiction in matters of probate and the administration of the estates of decedents, is well settled. In the case of Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503, 22 L.Ed. 599, the Supreme Court denied jurisdiction to the Circuit Court of the United States to set aside the probate of a will for fraud. In the case of Byers v. McAuley, 149 U.S. 608, 13 Sup.Ct. 906, 37 L.Ed. 867, the Supreme Court held that:

'The federal courts have no original jurisdiction in respect to the administration of decedents' estates, and they cannot by entertaining jurisdiction of a suit against the administrator, which they have the power to do in certain cases, draw to themselves the full possession of the res, or invest themselves with the authority of determining all claims against it.'

Again, in the same case (149 U.S.on page 619, 13 Sup.Ct. 910, 37 L.Ed. 867), the Supreme Court said:

'If original jurisdiction of the administration of estates of deceased persons were in the federal court, it might by instituting such an administration and taking possession of the estate, through an administrator appointed by itself, draw to itself all controversies affecting that estate, irrespective of the citizenship of the respective parties. But it has no original jurisdiction in respect to the administration of a deceased person. It did not in this case assume to take possession of the estate in the first instance, and it cannot, by entertaining jurisdiction of a suit against the administrator, draw to itself the full possession of the estate, or the power of determining all claims against or to it.'

And (149 U.S.on page 620, 13 Sup.Ct. 910, 37 L.Ed. 867) the court said:

'Our conclusion, therefore, is that the federal court erred in taking any action or making any decree looking to the mere administration of the estate, or in attempting to adjudicate the rights of citizens of the state, as between themselves. The state court had proceeded so far as the administration of the estate carries it forward to the time when distribution may be had. In other words, the debts of the estate had been paid, and the estate was ready for distribution, but no adjudication had been made as to the distributees, and in that exigency the Circuit Court might entertain jurisdiction, in favor of all citizens of other states, to determine and award their shares in the estate. Further than that it was not at liberty to go.'

In the case of Simmons v. Saul, 138 U.S. 439, 11 Sup.Ct. 369, 34 L.Ed. 1054, the Supreme Court held that:

'A court of equity will not entertain jurisdiction to set aside the granting of letters of administration upon a succession in Louisiana on the

...