The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-05-20
SUPREME COURT CASES.
Reported for The Clarion. bY Il. r. Parker
Attorney. ss-Lsw, jackson, Mss
NJ. 4. JAHIER
april Term 1855

HEyRY f. RAscoE, Admr., EFT Al. J
From the Chaneery Court of LAFAYETTE
county. B. T. Kimbrough, Chan
cellor.
Tistyi5,ttioa Of personal estate Of deee-
dent. .Sitas Of 1ebts and chooses IN actlo".
COOPER, c. J.;
In 1877. Miss Conkey, of Lafayette
county. Miss, being in Italy Tor her
health. married appellant, am ltallan. |
She had a small estate in Mississippi |
consisting entirely of money. 1t was In /
the hands of her brother-in-laW, MI /
Rascoe. who invested It from year 10
wear in loans to various parties, aIld
ren,itted the interest to her. In 1857,
Mrs. Jahier died in Italy; and theTeupoh
Mr. Rascoe obtained letters of admlnls-
tration upon her estate from the Cilau-
cerv Court of Lafayette county, Miss.
There were no debts To be paid, and the
only question is as TO whether the fund
| in the possession of the administrator
shall be distributed according to the
Laws of Italy OF of Mississippi. Our
statute declares that personal property
/ situated in this State shall be distrib-
pted under the laws of this State, re
gardless of the domicil of the deceased
/ The Italian law gives appellant only
one-third of the estate; whereas he
claims the whole, under the law of Mis-
sissippi Mrs. Jahier having died IN
testate and childless. The chancellor
tdecreed that the fund should be distrlb-
uted under the law of Italy
In the case of Speed q. Kelly, 80 Miss,
NE held that debt due by resident OF
this State to one domiciled in Louis
lana. and having in his possession in
that State the evidence of the debt, was
luot, in the absence of any other eVi
dence, person Il property situated in tins
State, within the meaning of our statute
of distribution. The reason given was
that chooses IN action, having no S'tUs,
adhered to the person of the owner
But we carefully excluded the inference
that this rule would be applied under
all circumstances, and regardless OF the
conduct or dealings of the owner. Inc
extent of that decision was that the
statute should not be construed As per Sc
localizing here all debts due by residents
of this State. But where the owner
himself so deals with his estate as tc
= INCORPORATE it with the mass of property
of the State. then, notwithstanding Its
changes and transformations, II con
2 tinues at all times situated IN this
3 State" within the meaning OF our statute
1t would be an unwarrantable construc
,, ton to hold that debts due by citizens
;, of Mississippi to merchants in Louisiana
and Tennessee, are situated in this state
Il within the meaning of the statute; while
d it is manifest that capital invested IN
business conducted in this State, though
i the business be owned by one domicilel
e in a foreign country, Is so situatea
whether it be in the shape of chooses II
1t action or of tangibls property. Gu
n view is that the question IS TO be deter
e mined by reference to the intent of tn
owner, as shown by all the surrounding
q. circumstances that the rule that chose
81 IN action have their sjtus ut the domicil
l. of the owner is only abrogated when !
is shown that the owner has so deal
# with the property as to locate it here
' and that debt arising as an incident
'. a business of any kind conducted in TIN
State is situated in this State and
re- governed by our laws. 1t follows tina
,e the estate in controversy passes to tn
ID husband of the intestate, regardless
her domicile. Decree reversed.
v Edward Mayes, for appellant.
in II. \. Barr, for appellees.