Case ID: johns-ch_2/html/0493-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Chancellor", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hammond against M’Lea and others.
    
      B seems, that the public administrator in the city of Mw- York, has no power, (under the act relative to persons dying intestate, &c. in JVew- York, sess. 38. eh. 157.) to administer on goods which were shipped at a foreign port, and arrived here after the death of the intestate.
    At any rate, this Court will not interfere, by injunction, in such case, but leave the parties to contest their rights at law.
    
      June 25th.
    [ * 494 ]
    THE bill, filed May, 1807, stated, that the plaintiff was duly appointed public administrator in the city of New- York, under the act (sess. 38. ch. 157.) relative to persons dying intestate, and leaving goods and chattels in the said city. That William Alexander Williams, late a merchant, resident at Buenos Ayres, died there, the 7th of January, 1807, leaving goods and chattels now in the city of New-York. That he has no widow, or next of kin, resident in *New-York. That the plaintiff had applied to the surrogate for letters of administration under the statute, and waited for the expiration of the citation, for 30 days, &c. That, in the mean time, the defendants, having obtained possession of goods of the deceased, since his death, had sold part, and threatened to send the residue to Europe. The plaintiff prayed for an injunction against selling or parting with the possession of the goods, &c.
    The answer of the defendants stated, that the goods in question came to his possession, in April last, under a consignment from Brown, Buchanan Sy Co. of Buenos Ayres, and who shipped the goods from Buenos Ayres, since the death of Williams. That the defendant paid the freight, &c., and proceeded to sell the goods, and sold part of them, before the injunction was issued and served. That the goods so shipped appeared to belong to the representatives of Williams; that the instructions to the defendants were to remit the proceeds to Europe, and that they had a lien on them, for charges, &c.
    
      Slosson, for the defendants,
    moved to dissolve -the injunction, on the ground, that the case did not come within the act, which provided, “ that whenever any person, not resident within this state, shall die intestate, leaving goods and chattels within the city of New- York, and the widow, or next of kin, residing within this state, should not, within 30 days after citation, take out letters of administration, the same should be granted to the public administrator,” &c.
   The Chancellor

[ * 495 ]

said, he was inclined to think, that the act did not apply to the case, as the goods in question were not here at the death of Williams, but were shipped from the Brazils, and consigned to.the defendants, after his death. If the plaintiff had any rights, he must be left to pursue them at law, under his letters of administration, in case they should be granted. It would *not be proper to interfere with the conflicting claims of third persons, in this way, unless in a case clearly within the act.

Injunction dissolved.