5 Blatchf. 225 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York | 1864
No cases have been referred to, nor am I aware of any in this state, or, indeed, in any of our sister states, adjudging the point in question. Different opinions seem to be entertained, by eminent judges in England, as to the conclusiveness of the decision of the ecclesiastical court, on a question of administration, upon a court of equity, in a suit for distribution, as may be seen from the case of Barrs v. Jackson, decided by Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce, in 1842 (1 Younge & C. Ch. 585), and the same case on appeal (1 Phil. Ch. 582). The opinion of Lord Lyndhurst on the appeal may, perhaps, be regarded as settling the question in England, in favor of the conclusiveness of the adjudication of the ecclesiastical court, though that may be doubted. It is not material, however, to go into this inquiry, for, admitting it to be so, the decision could not be allowed to control the question as presented under our system of administration. We regard the question of next of kin, under our system, as preliminary and incidental, before the surrogate, and simply with a view to ascertain the proper person, as prescribed by the statute, to be admitted to take letters of administration. This is the sole purpose and object of the inquiry; and it is made without any reference to, ot consideration of, the question of distribution. The question of the admission to take letters of administration is of much less importance, and an error in the proceedings is much less prejudicial in its consequences, than the question involving the distribution of the estate. If a competent person is appointed, in the former case, to administer upon the assets, though he may not be the right person, the interests of all concerned may be safe. But, in the latter, the right of property in the assets is concluded. Hence, the right to letters of administration is not usually severely contested. It may be added, also, that the surrogate is not concluded by his own adjudication in the matter. He may revoke the appointment, for imposition or fraud, or displace the administrator for cause and appoint another. The plea in this case must, therefore, be overruled, and the defendants have leave to answer.