66 65 16 | Title. 16 Hero Peton. 1 Bone Curt. in. Peters. Ttla Cum In. 211 Amis v. Pearlo 711 714 375–376 Gratoit v. United States 1801 773 211-212 715 376 774 213-214 Lea v. Kelly 72 715 377–378 United States v. Bank of 215 Buyck v. United States 74 716 the Metropolis 114 774 216-218 716 378381 776 218-221 717 381-384 776 221-223 718 384-387 777 223-225 719 387–389 778 226-227 United States V. De 779 780 781 230-232 721 398-400 782 233 Rhode Island y. Massa 400-403 783 784 785 235-238 723 407 408 United States v. Fitz238–241 724 128/ 786 786 244-247 726410-413 787 247-249 727 413-416 788 249-252 728416-418 789 252-255 729418-421 790 255-258 730 421-422 791 258-261 731 423-424 Minis v. United States 132791 261-263 732424-427 792 263-266 733427-430 793 266-269 734 4304433 794 269–272 735433-435 795 272-274 736 435-438 796 275–270|O'Hara v. United States 86 737 438-441 797 276–278 738 441-443 798 278-281 739443-446 799 281-283 740446–448 800 284 Gwin v. Breedlove 90] 740449 Groves V. Slaughter 284-286 741 137 800 801 287-289 742 451-454 802 290 United States v. Linn 931 742 454-457 803 290-293 743457-460 804 293–296 744 460–462 805 296–299 745462-465 806 299-301 746 465-468 807 301-304 747 408-471 808 304-307 748 471-473 809 307-310) 749 473-476 810 310-312 750 476-479 811 313-315 751 479-482 812 316-318 752 482-484 813 319-321 United States V. Del. 814 815 816 324–327 755 493–496 817 327-329 750496-498 818 329-332 757498-501 819 332-335 758 501-504 820 335 759 504-507 821 336–338 Gratiot v. United States 106 759 507-509 822 338-340 760 509-512 823 340-343 701 512-6151 824 343-346 762 515-517 825 346-349 763 518-519 United States v. The Am349-351 764 1561 826 827 354-357 766522-524 828 357-360 767 524-527 829 360–362 768 527-530 830 302-365 769 530-533 831 365-368 770 533-535 832 368-371 771 535-538 833 371-373 772 | 538-641 834 THE DEOISIONS OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, AT JANUARY TERM, 1841, 1'J 'JAMES MOODY VAUGHAN et al., Ap- the courts of the District of Columbia, in the same pellants, manner as if the same had been granted to such persons by the proper authority in the District of Columbia. The power is limited by Its terms to HENRY NORTHUP, Administrator of James the institution of sults; and does not authorize suits against an executor or administrator. The Moody, Deceased, et al. effect of this law was to make all debts due by per sons in the district, not local assets, for which the Administrator deriving authority from another administrator was bound to account in the courts State not suable in District of Columbia—ad full authority to receive, and for which he was ministration limited territorily-government bound to account in the courts of the State from of United States no particular domicile-ad which he derived his letters of administration. The case of Kane v. Paul, 14 Peters, 33, cited. ministrators appointed in State may sue in District of Columbia. ON United States for Alexandria, in the Dis. An administrator, appointed, and derlying his trict of Columbia. authority from another State, is not liable to be sued in the District of Columbia, in his official A bill was filed on the equity side of the Cir. character, for assets lawfully received by him in cuit Court of the District of Columbia, stating the District, under and in virtue of his original that the complainants are the next of kin and letters of administration. Every grant of administration is strictly confined distributees of James Moody, deceased, who in its authority and operation to the limits of the resided in Kentucky at the time of his death: territory of the government which grants it, and that the defendant, Northrup, took out letters cannot confer, as a matter of right, any authority of administration on the estate of said Moody, to collect assets of the deceased," in any other in the proper court in Kentucky, and by virtue State ; and whatever operation 18 allowed to it of said letters claimed and received from the beyond the original territory of the grant, is a mere matter of courtesy, which every nation is government of the United States a large sum at liberty to yield or to withhold, according to its of money, to wit, fifty-two hundred dollars. own policy and pleasure, with reference to its own The bill further stated that the complainants institutions, and the interests of its own citizens. reside in Virginia; that Northup was in the count for all the assets which he recelves under, District of Columbia at the time of filing the and by virtue of bis administration, to the proper bill (and Northup was actually found in said rives his authority. The tribunals of other States district, as appears by the marshal's return of have no right to interfere with or control the ap the subpæna), and that the other defendants plication of those assets according to the lex loci . reside in Kentucky, and pretend to be the next Hence it has become an established doctrine that of kin and distributees of said Moody. The bill an administrator cannot, in his official capacity, sue for any debts due to his intestate, lo the courts of prays an account of said estate against said another State ; and that he is not liable to be sued Northup, and distribution of the assets rein that capacity, in the courts of the latter, by ceived from the United States, etc. Northup any creditor, for any debt due there by his intestate. answered and pleaded to the jurisdiction of the The debts due from the government of the Unit- court on the ground that he was only reed States, have no locality at the seat of govern sponsible to the court in Kentucky, in which ity, have no particular place of domicile : but he had obtained letters of administration: he possess. in contemplation of law, an ubiquity then went on and answered the bill at large, throughout the Union; and the debts due by them denying are not to be treated like the debts of a private other defendants also came in and answered all its material allegations. The debtor, wbich constitute local assets in his own domicile. the bill. The complainants ordered the plea The administrator of a creditor of the govern- of Northup to the jurisdiction of the court to ment, duly appointed in the State where he was be set down for argument; and upon the reive payment, and give a full discharge of the argument, the court below ordered the bill of debt due to his intestate, 10 any place where the complaint to be dismissed. government may choose to pay It; whether it be at the seat of government, or at any other place where The complainants appealed to the Supreme the funds are deposited. Court. *The Act of Congress of June, 1822, autbor. Izes any person to whom letters testamentary or of the appellants, and by Mr. Coxe for the ap. * The case was argued by Mr. Brent for [*3 the United States, to prosecute claims by sults in pellee. Mr. Brent stated that the question was ject. The law never intended to oblige a whether a foreign administrator, one who had foreign administrator to stand a suit here; it taken out letters of administration in another would be vastly injurious, if such should be State, can come into the District of Columbia, the law. and receive money in the district, and was not The act giving jurisdiction to the courts of answerable for the amount so received in the the United States in the District of Columbia, district. cannot receive the construction given to it by The appellee, Henry Northup, was in the the counsel for the appellants; the jurisdiction district when the suit was brought. is given in cases properly cognizable in the It is admitted that at common law an ad courts, when one of the parties is in the disministrator is only liable to account where the trict. Cited, Story's Conflict of Laws, sec. 422, administration is granted. But this rule 613, 516. should not be applied to cases in the District The argument for the appellants is that as of Columbia. There would be a peculiar hard the money was received in the District of ship in the rule if it is applied here. A small Columbia, it is to be distributed and adamount of security might be taken on the ministered according to the laws of the Disgranting letters of administration; and on those trict. It is important that this question shall letters, a large amount of assets might be re- be settled. This was a claim in the hands of ceived out of the State granting the same. an administrator in Kentucky, of a debt due The creditors and next of kin would have no to a citizen of Virginia, by the State of Virrelief against the sureties of such an ad ginia, for military services, for which the ministrator. United States had agreed to pay. Is this to An Act of Congress of the 24th of June, 1812, bring the fund, because it was received in the authorizes administrators from other States of district, subject to the laws of the district ! the Union to collect money and institute suits in the District of Columbia. This places the Mr. Justice Story delivered the opinion of foreign administrator on the same footing as the court: if letters had been granted to him in the Dis- This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit trict of Columbia, and places him under the Court of the District of Columbia, sitting for same responsibilities. The court is bound to the County of Washington, 'dismissing a (*5 take notice of foreign administrators coming bill in equity, brought by the appellants into the district. Kane v. Paul, 14 Peters, 33. against the appellees. Thus, no administration to the effects of The facts, so far as they are necessary to be Moody could be obtained in this district, after stated upon the present occasion, are, that one the granting of the letters to Northup in Ken. James Moody, an inhabitant of Kentucky, died tucky, but the funds were all received here by in that State about the year 1802, intestate, the administrator; and the court will adminis- without leaving any children; that in May or ter the assets at the place where they have June, 1833, the defendant Northup obtained been received, and at the place of suit. 11 letters of administration upon his estate from Massachusetts Reports, 264. A legatee can the proper court of Jefferson County, in Ken. sue the administrator, when he obtains the as tucky; and afterwards under and in virtue of sets. 4 Mass. 344; 3 Peters's Rep. 144. Story's those letters of administration, he received Conflict of Laws, lst ed. 425, declares that non- from the Treasury of the United States the resident claimants are to be regarded in the sum of five thousand two hundred and fifteen same manner as residents. Cited, 1 Mason, dollars and fifty-six cents, for money due to 381; 1 Story's Conflict of Laws, sec. 534, 531, the intestate, or his representatives, for military 588. services rendered during the Revolutionary The Act of Congress of 1821, gives jurisdic- war. The present bill was brought by the aption to the courts of the District of Columbia pellants, claiming to be the next of kin; and 4*] in all cases in law or equity where *both heirs of the intestate, for their distributive or either of the parties are residents within shares of the said money, against Northup as the District of Columbia. The probate courts administrator; and the other defendants, who of Kentucky have not exclusive jurisdiction are made parties, are asserted to be adverse over the distribution of assets. 1 A. K. Mar- claimants, as next of kin and distributees. At shall's Rep. 459. the hearing of the cause in the court below; As to the pleadings, cited, Livingston v. the same having been set down for argument Story, 11 Peters, 393; Mitford's Pleading, 305, upon the answer of Northup, denying the 309. jurisdiction of the court; the bill was ordered Mr. Coxe, for the appellees: In the case of to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and Livingston v. Story, there was a plea to the from that decree the present appeal has been disability of the plaintiff. The objection in taken. this case is to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Under these circumstances the question is Court of the District of Columbia, in the broadly presented whether an administrator, matter of this administrator, and the distribu- appointed and deriving his authority from ancion of the assets, which must be made, as a other State, is liable to be sued here, in his great portion of them has already been made official character, for assets lawfully received in the State of Kentucky. by him under and in virtue of his original The Act of Congress of 1812 does no more letters of administration. We are of opinion, than authorize administrators of other States both upon principle and authority, that he is to sue in the District of Columbia; this was not. Every grant of administration is strictly necessary in consequence of the large claims confined in its authority and operation to the in the district from every part of the Union. limits of the territory of the government The act goes no farther than this, and not to I which grants it; and does not, de jure, extend abrogate all the laws prevailing on the sub- to other countries. It cannot confer, as » |
1 Рецензија Google не верификује рецензије, али проверава и уклања лажни садржај када га идентификује Напиши рецензију |