Watkins v. Eaton

• Citation: 173 F. 133
• Parties: WATKINS v. EATON.
• Decision Date: 15 September 1909
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

173 F. 133

WATKINS v. EATON.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. New York.

September 15, 1909

A. F. &amp F. M. Freeman (B. M. Thompson, of counsel), for complainant.

Carlos J. Coleman (Edwin H. Risley, of counsel), for defendant.

RAY District Judge.

The main object and purpose of this bill of complaint is to secure a decree directing the property (wholly personal) of the estate of Elizabeth S. Eaton, deceased, to be transferred to the complainant, William S. Watkins, as administrator with the will annexed of the estate, etc., of said decedent appointed by the probate court of the county of Washtenaw state of Michigan, by the defendant, Hervey E. Eaton, as executor of the last will and testament of said testatrix appointed such by the Surrogate's (or Probate) Court of Madison county, state of New York, and who now has possession of the same, or the main portion of the same. Watkins, the complainant, resides at Ann Arbor, in the state of Michigan, and Hervey E. Eaton resides at Eaton, Madison county, N.Y. The testatrix, Elizabeth S. Eaton, died at Ann Arbor, Mich., of which state she was a citizen, resident, and inhabitant, on or about May 17, 1906, leaving a last will and testament and a codicil thereto, and also leaving personal property, a small part of which, about $600, consisting of furniture, household effects, etc., was then situated in the state of Michigan, but the main portion of which, some $50,000, or more, was situated and located in said county of Madison, N.Y., and was in the possession of her agent, the defendant, Hervey E. Eaton, who, in and by said last will and testament, made and executed at Eaton aforesaid, while the testatrix was there temporarily, was made sole executor thereof. The bill alleges that this property in New York consisted of stocks, bonds, and other choses in action.

On or about March 31, 1906, said decedent, under the name Elizabeth Storms, at Ann Arbor, Mich., made and executed the codicil to the said will above referred to, in and by which she made some change as to the persons who were to care for her invalid brother, George A. Storms, and the amount to be paid them for such care. By the will the amount to be paid from the income for this purpose is $100 per month to Susan C. Storms, and by the codicil $75 per month to Genevieve S. Jacobs and N. P. Jacobs, her husband. The estate is to be divided and paid over to certain legatees named on the death of a sister, Susan C. Storms, and the said brother, George A. Storms. All the legacies and shares that can be paid before the happening of such event have been paid, and there is little, if anything, to be done by way of administration, except to hold and invest the property and pay for the support of George A. Storms, as directed, until the happening of the event referred to. It is not claimed that the testatrix owed any debts to any person or persons in the state of New York, and if she did they have been paid. There are no debts to be paid in the state of Michigan. No legacy was given to any person residing in New York, except three portraits to Hervey E. Eaton and a memorial window for a church in Syracuse, which the bill alleges have been satisfied. All the other legatees reside in Michigan, and did at the time the will and codicil were executed.

Soon after the death of the testatrix, Elizabeth S. Eaton, or Storms, the executor named in the will, who had it in his possession, as well as the property mentioned, duly applied to the Surrogate's Court of the said county of Madison, N.Y., to have the said will and codicil proved and admitted to probate in said court. A citation issued and was duly served as required by the laws of the state of New York on all the persons interested in the estate. This service was by publication, not personally, and the legatees resided and were in Michigan at the time, except two whose specific legacies have been paid. Rachel P. Dickenson, Susan C. S. Higgins, and Leah C. Kersey, Leah C. Kersey being one of the residuary legatees, appeared and contested said will and codicil in said Madison County Surrogate's Court on the grounds, among others, that the said will and codicil were not her act, her last will and testament and codicil thereto, and that she was mentally incompetent to make and execute same. The issues presented were tried, evidence taken, and the surrogate of Madison county made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a decree was entered accordingly that same was the valid last will and testament and codicil thereto of said Elizabeth S. Eaton, and that she was competent to execute same, and admitting same to probate, and thereupon letters testamentary of said last will and testament and codicil were duly issued by said surrogate to the defendant, Hervey E. Eaton, who remains such executor, and who has proceeded and is proceeding to execute such will and codicil according to the terms thereof. Such decree was not appealed from. Soon after the death of said testatrix, and in July, 1906, said Higgins, Dickenson, and Kersey filed their petition for the proof of said will, not including the codicil, which they alleged to be invalid by reason of the mental incompetency of the testatrix to execute same, in the probate court of Washtenaw county, Mich., of which county the testatrix was a resident when she executed the will and codicil and at the time of her death, and asked that the will be admitted to probate, and that the codicil be rejected as invalid for the reason stated, and that letters of administration with the will annexed of said will issue to Ralph Phelps, Jr. Notice pursuant to the laws of the state of Michigan of such application and proceeding was duly given to all interested parties, and such proceedings were had that December 1, 1908, W. L. Watkins was appointed administrator with the will annexed of the estate of said Elizabeth S. Eaton by said probate court of the county of Washtenaw, state of Michigan, and he duly qualified as such, and remains such administrator. This service was by publication as required by law of Michigan.

It is alleged and conceded that the defendant, as executor, is paying from the estate, for the support and care of George A. Storms under, and in recognition of the validity of, the codicil to said will; that is, at the rate of $75 per month, instead of $100 per month, as provided in the will itself, which is $300 per year less than the will as proved and admitted to probate in the courts of Michigan permits or authorizes, and that the sum paid is being paid to a person or to persons not authorized to receive it, and that no payment is being made to the one entitled thereto, if the codicil is invalid and no part of the testamentary disposition. The executor claims that, the will and codicil having been declared valid and admitted to probate in New York, and the decree not appealed from, he is protected in proceeding and acting under it. The complainant, on the other hand, claims that the validity of the will and codicil is determined by the court of Michigan and that its decree prevails; that distribution and payment over of the funds is governed by the law of Michigan; and that, the codicil having been duly adjudicated void there, although held valid here in New York prior to such adjudication, the executor, Eaton, must be governed as to the validity of the codicil by the decree in Michigan. The complainant also contends that, all purposes of administration in New York having been fully met and satisfied, that is, there being no unpaid debts or legacy due or coming due to any person in New York, the estate should be delivered by Eaton to the administrator with the will annexed in Michigan for purposes of administration and distribution according to the law of the domicile of the testatrix. The defendant claims that this transfer or delivery over is a matter of discretion, to be exercised by the Probate or Surrogate's Court of Madison County, N.Y., alone, and that the Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction or power in the matter. The bill in substance and effect charges that there is a devastavit of $860 per year in the payments made by the defendant for the care of George A. Storms, and that the same is being paid to the two Jacobses without authority, inasmuch as the codicil has been rejected by the Michigan courts, and that $100 per month should be paid to Susan C. S. Storms for the purpose.

The provisions of the will in this regard read:

'Sixth. I give and bequeath to my sister Susan C. Storms, during the term of her natural life, from the income of my estate, one hundred dollars per month, provided and on condition that she care for and make a home for my mute brother George Albert Storms during his lifetime.

'Seventh. Should my sister Susan C. Storms die before my brother George Albert Storms, then and in that case I hereby direct and empower my said executor to pay to my sister Leah Catherine Kersey, from the income of my estate, the sum of fifty dollars per month for caring for and making a home for my said brother George Albert Storms during his lifetime, and in case George Albert Storms would survive both Susan C. Storms and Leah Catherine Kersey then my said executor is hereby authorized and directed to make other suitable and sufficient arrangements for such care and home and to pay for the same.'

The provisions of the codicil are:

'Whereas, my brother George A. Storms is unable to care for himself through physical defects and infirmities, it is my wish that my sister Genevieve S. Jacobs and her husband, Nathaniel P. Jacobs, do so care for him and make his home with them during the term of his natural life and that they shall receive the sum of seventy-five dollars ($75) per month compensation during that time. In

...