20g
95 FEDERAL REPORTER.
was not acting in ,good faith i,n making the contract of purchase company. The 'luestion of the good faith of Schneider has heard and detel'll!.iJ;led by the tribunal upon which the act of 1887 conferred the to settle that question, and there,is nothing recited in the. bill herein filed' which would justify theco,TIrtinsetting aside the conclusion and judgment of the land upon the issue thus, properly submitted to it for decision. The; to the bill must therefore be sustained on the ground that the complainant's case is wholly without law or equity to support it, and the entry ordered is that the demurrer is sustained, and the bill is dismissed on the merits, at the cost of complainant.
BEDFORD QUARRIES CO. v. No. 558.
et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. June 6, 1899.)
10
EQUITY JURISDICTION-REMEDY AT LAW-ADMINISTRATION.
Ordinarily a bill in equity will not lie to compel personal representatives to satisfy a debt of their decedent, since the remedy at law is adequate.
2.
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS-JURISDICTION-ADMINISTRATION.
Such a bill wlll not lie in a federal court for the further reason that in general the administration of the estates of deceased persons is left to the local law.
App,eal fronl the Oircuit Oourt the United States for the Northern DiVision of the Northern District of Illinois. Sherley Schooler, for appellant. JesseR. McCulloch, for appellees. Before WOODS and JENKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUNN, District Judge. BUNN, District Judge. This is a suit in equity brought by the Bedford Quarries Company, a corporation of Indiana, against Joseph Thomlinson, as executor,. and Sarah Thomlinson l executrix, of the last Will,311d testament of John Thomlinson, deceased, residing at Chicago, 111., to require the defendants to satisfy a debt of $3,554.74 and intel'eBt owing by the decedent in his lifetime to complainants for stone delivered to him upon certain contracts for that purpose. After setting out tb,e. contract for'the delivery of the sttne on board the carli!dhf'l delivery thereof by the complainants, the amounts paid by the deceased, and the claim for balance due, the bill sets forth that during the lifetime of t:\1e decedent' complainants had frequently reof the demand, and that after his death, November 10, 1897, and since the defendants came into possession of his estate, they had requested the said executors to make some provision for the of .said indebtedness out of the funds of the estate in their hands, but that defendants have been heedless of such requests, and that their acts andomissioDS tend to the manifest wrong of the,complainants. These are, in substance, all the facts set forth
BEDFORD QUARRIES CO. V. THOMLINSON.
209
by the bill of complaint. There was a general demurrer to the bill, and the court below dismissed the bill for want of equity. It must be conceded that the bill is very meager in its allegations of fact to bring the case within any principle of equity cognizance. There are two well-settled principles of jurisprudence which the bill seems in the main to ignore: The one is that equity will not afford relief where there is a full and ample remedy at law. The other is that in general the administration of the estates of deceased persons is left to the local law. There are no facts alleged to take the case from the operation of either of these well-settled principles of jurisprudence. The bill, no doubt, states a good cause of action at law against the decedent, and this is all. 1'10 reason is given why equity should take cognizance of the case. For aught that appears, the complainants have an adequate remedy at law for the collection of their debt. There are no allegations tending to show fraud or concealment on the part of the executors, or misappropriation of property, making a bill for discovery necessary. 'rhere is no showing that the executors had qualified or entered upon the duties of their office, that the will had been proven, or that the time had come when the executors had any power or authority to act. For all that appears, the executors may have taken possession of the property merely to preserve it until the will should be proven, and the executors should qualify and enter upon the discharge of their duties, in which event they would have no authority or power to pay debts. The bill alleges that the executors had property enough in their hands to pay complainants' debt, but fails to allege that there were not other debts to be paid, or, if there were, that there was property enough to pay all the debts in full. What right would the executors have to pay the complainants' claim in advance of any marshaling of the debts and assets of the estate, that it might be seen whether the creditors could all be paid in full? It is alleged that the will provided for the payment of debts. But that would not authorize the payment in full of debts 3.S they are demanded, without some account being made of the condition of the estate, to see whether all creditors could be paid in full. If such a proceeding as this were allowable, any estate, however solvent under the usual prudent and orderly management which obtains in probate courts, might be ruined by an accumulation of bills in equity. If one creditor lllily thus pursue the estate, all may. A nonresident would have no advantage over resident creditors, and all might go into equity with their suits, and embarrass and overwhelm the estate with costs before time could be had to marshal the debts and assets. If such a bill as this could be maintained, there is no reason why the equity jurisdiction of the court might not draw to itself the entire administration of the estates of deceased persons, thus taking it out of the hands of the courts of probate, where it has generally been so well and economically administered in this country under local law. There is nothing in this bill to show that if the complainants, at the proper time, had filed their claim in the probate court, it would not, in due course of the administration of the estate, have been paid. If the claim so filed were disputed, they would, being nonresidents of the 95F.-14
210
95 FEDl'JRAr.. REPORTER.
state,1:lt} entitled! to 'their action at law in the United States ckcuit i;onrt to establish their claim. But, when so established, it should be filed with' the Other claims against the estate, and take its place on equal terms with them. ';Y;onley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276; Williams' V.' Benedict, 8 How;'107\ ' InYonley v. :Lavender the supreme court lays down the rule as follows: "Where a statUte o! a state places the' whole estate-real and personal-of a decedent within the custody· ()!,the probate court of the county, so that the assets may be fairly and .equital:lly distributed among creditors, without distinction, as to resident or nonresident, a nonresident, creditor may get a jlldgment in. it federal court against the resident executor or administrator, and come in on the estate according to the law of the state for such payment as that law, marsh3illng the rightsof:creditors, awards to debtors of its Class. But he canllot,because, he .has obtaineq; a judgment in the federal court, issue an execution, and take pJ;'ecedence of. other creditors who have no right to sue in the federal courts."
Chancellor I{ent states the rule correctly, but somewhat mildly, in McK;ay v. Green,S Johns. Ch. 56, as follows: "I noubt whether' a creditor ought to come into this, court, in an ordinary case, and without some. cause, to collect his debt from an executor or administrator. It, ,would ,sePffi ll.ot to, be enongh to state that he is a simplecontract creditor, for this wo'Uld invite ,all snits against execntors in this court. The ordinary and proper,' as well as cheaper and easier, remedy, is at law."
1:
c()urt <;If N. H. 345, Ii,lJ's dow ll a simIlar rule, as follows:,
v,, Cheever, 35 .'
, "Under the.,EI1glish practice, cQUrts, of,.equltyassume a very Nrisdictioll over of administration, from the fact that the courts of common law and eceIestasdcal courts 'itl are held not' to have powers adequate to gi>te; relief. "Thisjtirisdiction is said to ha>te been founded upon the principle that it is the,duty the court to .enforce the execution of trusts. But H .alsobeen. s,ald j that other groundsexlilt, such, as the necessity of taking aCGounts and compelling a discoveq'. Witl1 us there is no neassuming such genera'ljurisdiction in eqUity upon this .subject. Our statutes pro'viding''for the settlement and distributillU'; of"'estates in most cases gi>te amplepOIWers to the courtlS!Qf probate and of COmmon law to enforce .all IWeqfu! l'eme41es to. secure rigjrts of all parties, alild" so far. as the statutes apply tIle. .of they take fro1U. cpancery its jurisdiction."
In the stateJ,pf Tllinois;where this suit was brought, the statute gives the' administration' bfestatesof deoeasedpersons to the probate courts of theseveralcbunties. And it is well settled by the decision of thesupreme·court'of that state that· it court of equity wiUnote:x:eI'cise jurisdiction, over such estates by entertaining pro· ceedings against an administrator or executor\ except in ex,traordi· nary cases, where some specialteasori is shoWn why there is nota complete and ample remedy at law. Freeland"t. Dazey, 25 TIL 294, 297; Heusm v.Johnson, 841IIl. 61;'Winslow 1vi Leland, 128 Ill. 304, 340,21N.E. 588; Shepard: ,vi. Speer,' 140 III. 238j 246, 29 N.,E;'718; Duvalv..1)uval, 153 'lll.49;53, 38 NlE.944; Crain v. Kennedy, 85 Ill. '340; Harding v. Shepard, 107 m. 264, 213;' Blancliard v. Williamson, 70 Ill. 647, 651; Harris v: Douglas, 64 Ill.: 466, 468, 469; 'Armstrong v. Cooper, 11 Ill. 561; 562; Hales v. Holland, 92 TIL 494, 497, 498; Goodman v. Kopperl,' 169 TIL 136, 48 N.E. 172. In Hales v. Holland, 92:111. 494, there was a bill in equity similar
BEDFORD QUARRIES CO. V. THOMLIXSON.
·
211
to this brought by atreditor against the heirs and administi·ators. The court,in deciding the case, say: "The main question in this case is whether chancery wlll take jurisdiction to allow a claim, for that is the effect of the relief sougbt. The statute has prescribed a simple, expeditious, and inexpensive mode of presenting and allowing claims against estates in the probate court. The remedy thus given to creditors is ample and complete in all ordinary cases. Here was a simple legal claim,a debt due by note, and susceptible of proof, and free from all equitable compli('ations. If equity may take jurisdiction to heat proof and allow such a claim, then it is difficult to conceive a claim so purely legal in its nature that a bill might not be maintained to establish it and to control its administration. It never could'have been intended b:r the general assembly that every person having a note, account, or other legal demand shOuld have the right to resort to the expensive course of filing a bill for the simple purpose of probating tbe claim; and, if one such claim may be thus probated, all may, and estates consumed in the payment of costs of litigation. To so hold would be to defeat the statute prescribing the mode of settling estates, and to render the probate court useless, and substitute a different mode of adjusting estates from that established and required by the general assembly. See Blanchard v. Williamson, 70 Ill. 617. It is true that there may be isoiated cases where a claim against an estate is equitable, or is so entangled that a court of law is unable to investigate and establish it for allowance against the estate, and the intervention of chancery may become necessary for the adjustment of such claims. But such cases are rare and of an extraordinary character. * * * It surely will not be contended that any creditor may file a bill on: a purely legal demand against an estate for allowance and administration,and thus remove the settlement of the entire estate from the probate court, where the statute has placed it. To administer the assets of the estate for the satisfaction of one claim would newould recessitate the settlement of the entire estate. To order the quire an investigation of the condition of the estate, the claims allowed and preferred against it, and the situation and condition of the assets and the accounts of the executor or administrator. The chancellor surely has no such power, and, until required by legislative enactment, it cannot be sanctioned."
The subject is fully dealt with by the United States lSupreme court in Board of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521, in. a very able opinion by Mr.·Justice Fields, in the manner following: "The jurisdiction of a court of equity to reach the property of a debtor justly applicable to the payment of his delJts, even when there is no specific lien on the property, is undoubted. It is a very ancient jurisdiction, but for 'its exercise the debt must be clear and undisputed, and there must exist some special clrcumstances reqlJiring the interposition of the. court to obtain possession of and apply the property. Unless the suit relates to the estate of a deceased person, the debt must be established by some judicial proceeding, and it must generally be shown that legal means for its collection have been eXhausted. '" '" * The rule requiring the existence of special circumstances bringing the case under some recognized head of eqUity jurisdiction should not only be insisted upon with rigor whenever the property sought to be reached constitutes. as here, assets of a deceased debtor which have already been subject to administration and distribution; but some satisfactor3' excuse should be given for the failure of the creditor to present his claim, in the mode prescribed by law, to the representative of the estate, before distribution. Williams v. Gibbes, 17 How. 239, 254, 255; Pharis v. Leachman, 20 Ala. Gll2. In England courts of chancery took jurisdiction of bills against executors and administrators for discovery llI)(l accounts of assets, and to reach property applicable to the payment of the debts of deceased persons not merely from their general authority over trustees and trusts, but from the imperfect and defective power of the ecclesiastical court. It was sufficient that a debt existed against the·estate of a decedent, lind that there was property 'which should be applied to its payment, to justify ,he interpo,,!tion of the court. '" '" * In this country t4ere are special courts, established in ail'the states, llaving jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons, called 'Probate Courts,' 'Orphans' Courts,' or 'Surrogate Courts,' possess-
212
9:1 FEDERAL REPORTER.
respect to personal assets, nyaxlY all the formerly exerc1sedby the court of chllncery and the ecciesiasfical courts of England. They are authorized to collect the assets of the deceased, to allow claims, to direct theIr payment and the distrIbutIon of the property to legatees or other partIes entitled, and generally to do eve17thlng essentilLl to the final settlement 'of theaIrairs of ' the decease4 and the claims of creditors against the estate. There Is a specIal conrt of thIs kind In thIs District, called the 'Orphans' Court,' which was competent to allow the complaInant's demand, but the demand was never presented to it for allowance. That court could have directed the application of the assets of the estate, If a demand had been allowed, or, if rejected, had been establlshed by legal proceedings."
These are decisive' of the one at par, and the decree of the circuit court diSlllissing the bill is affirmed.
'ORIDER v·. SHELBY. (Oircult Court, D. Indiana. July 1, 1899.) No. 9,715. L PROMISSORY PAYABLE AFTER DEATH OF MAKER·
..An instrument In the form of an ordinary promissory note is not testamentary In cbaracter, nor Is It rendered Invalid as a note. because the date of payment Is a specIfied length of tIme after the death of the maker. AGAINST ESTATES OF DECEDENTS-
.. JURISDICTION OF STATE STATUTES.
l'he courts of the UI):1ted States have jurIsdiction to entertaIn suits on claims against estatll8 of decedents, brought against the executor or admln· , istrator, where the amount· in controversy is sufficient, and the requisite divel'sity of citizenship appears; and such jurisdiction cannot be affected by a state statute requiring claime to be filed in a particular court.l
On Demurrer to Complaint. Jaques & Jaques and Edenharter '& Mun, for plaintiff. Burke & Warrum, for defendants. District Judge. This is an action at law, brought by the plaintUf, a citizen of. the state of Iowa, against Samuel N. Shelby, special administrator of the estate of Noble Warrum, deceased, a citizen of the state of Indiana, upon an instrument in writing in the words and figures following:. I ,
"Ottumwa, Iowa, Sept. 22, 1873. "SiXty days llfter my death I bind myself by these presents to pay to Mary E. Orider, wife of John J. Crider, the ,spm of eighteen thousand and five hundred dollars, with sIx per cent. interest· after January 1st, 1880. Said amount I hereby direct my administrators and executors to pay in good current money of the United States. For value receIved. "Witness my hand and seal, day and date above written. "Attest: W. S. English. Noble Warrum. "Joseph Gray."
The'defenda.nt has filed a demurrer to the complaint for want of facts, 1ind in argument assigns two grounds why the complaint should be adjudged insufficient. tAs to jurisdiction of federal courts In probate matters, see note to Barling v. Bank, 1 C. C. A. 513;