Jefferson County MsArchives Court.....Winter, Vs. Winter 1834
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ms/msfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 2, 2008, 7:40 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases - Mississippi
Written: 1834

December Term 1825.

DAN'L WINTER vs. GAB WINTER, Admin. of ELISHA WINTER dec'd. 

A. having taken out letters of administration on the estate of B, in one 
State, cannot be sued as administrator in another state on a judgment obtained 
against him as such, in the State where he administered.

OPINION OF THE COURT - by the Hon. EDWARD TURNER. 

Judgment was rendered on the declaration, without other pleading, in the court 
below for the plaintiff, subject to the following agreement of the parties, to 
wit: "In this case, it is agreed by counsel on both sides, that the judgment 
taken in this cause be subject to the question, whether the defendant, having 
never taken out letters of administration in this state, can be here sued upon 
a judgment obtained against him in another state, for a debt of defendant's 
intestate, as administrator. This question has been referred to this court on 
doubts of the judge before whom the suit was pending, and we have given the 
subject a full and thorough examination both at the last term and the present. 
The powers, rights and duties of executors and administrators have been much 
litigated, and have received a full share of judicial attention: and although 
many points and principles are settled in the courts of Great Britain, and in 
those of the United States, of the several States, and even in this State, 
yet, we cannot promise ourselves that new points will not arise hereafter from 
this fruitful source of controversy.

At a very early period of our territorial government, a suit was brought in 
the superior court of Jefferson County, by Johnson's executors vs. Green's 
executors. Johnson sued under letters testamentary obtained in Virginia, for a 
debt claimed to be due by Green, in his life time, to Johnson. The executors 
of Green pleaded that Johnson's executors had not obtained letters 
testamentary in the Mississippi Territory, and on demurrer to the plea, 
judgment was given for the defendants, under the authority of English 
precedents, supported by the case of Fennewick vs. Sears' administrators, 
reported in 1st. Cranch 259. This judgment, it is stated, was affirmed in our 
supreme court, and has been considered authority ever since.

In England, different jurisdictions claimed separate and exclusive rights in 
settling and distributing deceased persons' estates, and the law protected 
them in the exercise of their privileges. We are more liberal, and more 
consistent, for we allow but one probate of a will, or one administration, in 
our state. Letters testamentary, or of administration granted in any county, 
have full power and effect throughout the state.

Every sovereign power or state, claims the right of having the estates of 
deceased persons lying or being within their respective jurisdictions, 
collected and distributed under their own authority; and under this principle 
they allow no foreign power to interfere, or to exercise jurisdiction over 
such estate. This principle is a convenient and salutary one, and requires 
only to be well understood, to be approved and respected. If administration 
has been granted in our state, in our state, all creditors, foreign and 
domestic, can come in for payment on an equal footing. If no administration 
shall have been granted, a foreign, as well as a local creditor, can claim, 
and obtain letters of administration, or letters with the will annexed, as the 
case may be: and thus in either case, our courts superintend the just and 
lawful collection and distribution of the estates of deceased persons, found 
within our jurisdiction. 

We know that a person may have an estate in one or more states, and 
administration may be granted in each, according to their respective laws, and 
that a creditor may seek his debt or demand, wherever he finds assets; but he 
must seek it under the law and authorities of the local jurisdiction. Under 
these principles, all is harmony. But if we adopt the doctrine contended for 
by the plaintiff in this case, all would be confusion. Suppose Elisha Winter 
had died, leaving goods and lands in this state and in Kentucky; that 
administration on his estate had been taken here as well as in Kentucky; that 
the Mississippi administrator had given bond and security, and had returned 
his inventory; that afterwards the Kentucky administrator happened here, and 
was sued by a Kentucky creditor, that judgment was obtained, execution issued, 
and levied on those very goods and chattels inventoried by the former, [and if 
we give judgment, we cannot deny execution,] and suppose the estate shall be 
represented insolvent here, what chance would Mississippi creditors have for 
their debts? What control would our courts have over the assets levied on? And 
what responsibility would the Kentucky administrator be under for suffering an 
illegal judgment and recovery against him, or for a waste of the assets here? 
His bond in Kentucky can relate only to his acts in that state; and the nature 
of this question shows the impropriety of suffering such interference. The 
estates of deceased persons are under the protection of our laws; and no one 
need complain that there is no executor or administrator, for any person 
interested can procure the office, if the next of kin refuse or neglect it.

Reasoning and authority might be multiplied in this case, but it is deemed 
unnecessary to enter more into detail. The authorities referred to in 
Massachusetts Reports and in Cranch, and those found in several other states 
of the union, support fully the grounds I have taken, and there is nothing in 
the cases cited by the plaintiff's counsel which contravenes them. We do not 
deny the credit and effect of the Kentucky judgment. It is a legal claim on 
the estate of the deceased E. Winter wherever found; but surely, each state 
will be allowed its own mode of administering justice, and its own remedy to 
those who prefer their complaints. We do not deny the right, but we prescribe 
the remedy.

The case reported in 1 Marshall 301, which has been relied on by plaintiff's 
counsel may be law. It is certainly within the words of the statute of this 
state, as well as that in Kentucky; but the case before us is not such an one. 
It is not shown that E. Winter had or had not assets here at the time of his 
death, or that his administrator has brought any of his assets to this state 
since the death of the intestate. If such is the case, the plaintiff is not 
without remedy. It is laid down in Wharton's Digest, p. 277, that an 
administrator who takes out letters of administration in one state, may, in 
equity, be called upon by a creditor, to account for the assets in another. A 
suit at law might be framed to suit the case. Any action which would go to 
subject the defendant's person or estate to just liability might be 
maintained. But in this case, he issued in his character of administrator 
only, not charging a devastavit or any thing else, to make him liable out of 
his own estate.

I am clearly of opinion that the present action cannot be maintained, and that 
the judgment be rendered for the defendant, on the case agreed.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Mississippi; 1818 - 1832; 
By R. J. Walker, Reporter of the State. Natchez: Printed at the Courier and 
Journal Office, 1834.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ms/jefferson/court/winter101gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/msfiles/

File size: 7.9 Kb