Year: 1870

PARkER'S ESTATE.


A Million Dollars Involved - The Law ei


Executors.


Orphans COttrt-AH Hs0n, p. J.


In the matter Of the estate Of John Borden Parker
deceased, Judge Allison this morning read the fol-
lowing able opinion, settling several questions Of
law of vital Importance


The petitioner, Mrs. Maria r. freeman, is a
under his will, which was proved before the Regis
ter in this city, on the Both day of November, 1885,
and had been proved In the county of Burlington
state OF New Jersey, on the preceding 9th day OF
October.


heirs, filed two accounts with the Surrogate of
Burlington county, showing that there was In their
hands for distribution, on the 3lst day of December


The petitioner asserts that the assets which make
up said balance are in the custody and control of
the executors, OF whom resides in this city, and
the other in Carlisle in the State of Pennsylvania
and that she is domfciled in Philadelphia.


The petitioner also alleges that under the will Of
her father she is entitled to portion of the aore-
said balance for distribution, amounting TO s272,-
749 27 or thereabouts; she therefore prays for q
citation to the executors, John Brown Parker and
Frederick Watts, directing them to show canse why
a decree should not be made ordering them to
tion which Is due to her.


The answer assigns for cause against the order
which the petitioner seeks to obtain chiefly that
considerable portion Of the assets only be dis
trbuted by decree Of the proper court of the State
held in New Jersey by the testator at the time of
his DEATH they are properly and Of right Distribute





they lie, which is also the law of the testators domi-
clle Mr Parker at the time OF his death and for
aforesaid county of Burlington.


This brings up for decision the power OF the Court
to take jurisdiction OF the property OF dsHedent
vania for administration and distribution


The powers and duties Of executors are defined
relating thereto. That of 14th June, 1886, Purd Dig,
76s, provides that the executors over whom juris-
dictiOn can be exercised are those who derive their
authority from the regisers OF the respective
ties, and in Fretys Appeal, W. s., 1872, the Su-
preIne Court have said Its provisions relate solely
to persons acting in hduciary capacity by virtue OF
a WILL appointment by the register or Orphans
Court having jurisdiction of the estate of deceased


We do not allow an executor or administrator OF
foreign State 10 come into Pennsylvania and by
diction collect the assets OF the estate in Pennsyl
yania and carry them out Of the State for admins
removes from the State, the Orphans Court having
Jurisdiction of his accounts are authorized to vacate
granted by the register having jurisdiction, upon
such security as the Court may think proper Sec.
of an administrator, non-residence is cause Of dis
qualification by the express terms of the 27th
ton Of the act OF March 10, 1892 In Lukens Appeal
Barr, 1859 the Supreme Court SO ruled. =


BY the sixteenth section OF the act last cited, it is
provided II any register shall grant letters testac
this Commonwealth, without taking the proper bond
and surees the letters so granted shall be yod and
an executor acting under them shall in all respects
be treated executor OF his own wrong and the
register and his sureties are made liable TO pay all
damages which shall accrue to any person by reason


These several acts of Assembly make it abun-
dainty clear that by our law an executor derives all
his authority to collect and distribute the assets Of
an estate which may be found within this jurlsdic-
| ton, by virtue OF the letters which are here
granted and that it is OF these assets alone that he
is here called on TO render account in this forum
We do not think the position sound one, that be-
cause executors are subject to Orphans Court to
any OF the assets they become to ALL This would be
to cOnfound jurisdiction and would inevitably result
In tot nl 0nfh ffnh NJ
order in the settlement OF estate, and OF safety
to the person charged with the performance OF sucn
a trust should be avoided 1t is an argument which
answers and defeats itself, OF which the before
us is clear illustration. The testatOr died possessed
OF property situate in five different States II the
principle con.ended for by the petition is a
sound one, it follows that we have as many separate
Jurisdictions, each having control over part OF the
assets OF the estate, and by reason OF such CONTROL
drawing to itself all the remaining portions, and
TO the whole making separate and possibly conflict
ing DEGREES, both as TO settlement and distribution
There already two accounts filed by these eXecu-
tors upon compusion, at the instance OF heirs and
legatees in New Jersey, as well as in Pennsylvania
| the former OF these accounts has been audited
| and stated by the Surrogate Of Burlington
Ses Of which has been gy
been made TO them, decree has been entered
allowing the same as reported The respondents
say they are advised by counsel learned In the law
in New Jersey, that said DEGREES are In accordance
with the regular practice OF the Orphans Court OF
cia determinations; that all the items with which
the accountants charged themselves, as well all
|
also that the balance resulting therefrom cor
rect and allowed TO remain stated but that said
| DEGREES are neither final nor distrbutye.
1t is further stated by the respondents, in their
answer that 1t is the practice OF the courts OF New
Jersey TO make fina and distributive decree upon
| the motion OF any one in interest upon an account
| thus stated and settled.


Taking this TO be correct statement OF the facts
and OF the law of New jersey 1t shows two things
that portion OF the assets which the petitioner asks
may be brought into distribution here, so far as
their settlement and allowance goes, have already
passed under the jurisdiction and decree OF foreign
tribunal; and also that that which is asked TO be
| done by us Mrs. Freeman can have done by applca-
| ton to the courts OF Burlington county.


1t may be objected that in the accounts filed in
! New jersey, assets which were collected elsewhere
are taken into those accounts ana that the same
lection may properly be made there to distribution
OF the estate settled by the DEGREES of the
gate that is now made TO the claim OF the petitioner
to have all OF the estate brought here for dstrbu-
ton. But 1t Is sulcient answer TO this suggestion
that the petitioner had legal notice OF the proceed
ngs in the courts OF New Jersey, and that she has
allowed the DEGREES OF settlement TO go without
objection and that any injury TO follow from tue
preliminary DEGREES as they now stand, IL IS not TOO
late 10 apply TO the Orphans Court or Burlington
county for relief against the orders and determl-
nation OF the Surrogate Nor is the principle which
we believe 10 be the true one in case OF this kind
\ WithOnt aufhOMfV for RuDDOrf The cases cited