3 Woods 94 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana | 1877
The point was urged with great force by the solicitor for deiendant, that there was a conflict of juris-diciion between the courts, and that the mortuary court which appointed the defendant administrator was seized of jurisdiction, over this property. There is no conflict of jurisdiction, nor can there be in this case. It was not in the power of the mortuary court of Louisiana, by virtue of any order, to give the defendant authority to possess any property which did not belong to the estate of the decedent, and which the estate was not also entitled to possess. If any party has a better title or a better right to possess, he cannot be divested by any order of the mortuary court, and the question as to whether the property belongs to the estate of the decedent, and whether such estate was entitled to its possession, is open to all courts in which the same may be put at issue.
The only question I need consider is, whether the complainants show that they are entitled to the possession of the ice. This question carries with it the whole matter which is now before me. It is not necessary to determine the validity of the sale to the complainants, or whether it was in accordance with the laws of Illinois. The undisputed facts are, that the personal property which belonged to the estate of the deceased was in Illinois at the time of her death, laden on board barges, bound for New Orleans under a contract which necessitated that it should be brought here charged with the freight; that the amount of freight equaled the value of the property, and that the money with which the decedent agreed to pay freight was in Illinois. Under these circumstances, Illinois being the domicile of the decedent at the time of her death, I think that the administrators were certainly authorized to make provision for the payment of the freight. It is not merely the case of personal property passing from the territorial limits of the state of a deceased person to another jurisdiction, but of property which had been destined and consigned under certain conditions for a market merely for sale, subject to an incumbrance which would consume the property, and might leave a residuary liability. It is the case of property shipped from the domicile of the decedent after her death to another place, merely as a place of market. It seems to me, under these circumstances, that property, vested in the administrators in Illinois, which is merely shipped into another state to be sold, does not pass out of the administrators merely by crossing the state line. It is to all intents and purposes localized, so far at least as to allow the administrators of the place of the domicile to dispose of it. Whether they have disposed of it by a valid sale, it is not necessary now to say. They certainly had the right to authorize the complainants to pay the freight, and by their paying the freight they became subrogated to the rightá of the earners, one of which is to hold the property, until they are repaid. It is not the case of property merely passing
Justice Story, in his Conflict of Laws (§ 520) says: “Indeed, according to the common course of commercial business, ships and cargoes, and the proceeds thereof, locally situated in a foreign country at the time of the death of the owner, always proceed on their voyages and return to the home point, without any suspicion that all the parties concerned are not legally entitled so to act, and they are taken possession of and administered by the administrator of the forum domicilii, with the constant persuasion that he may not only rightfully do so, but that he is bound to administer them as part of the funds appropriately in his hands.” See also Embry v. Millar, 1 A. K. Marsh, 300.
I need not consider whether the restrictions created by the statute of Illinois as to sales by executors apply to property shipped elsewhere for market, nor need I consider the claim of the administrator appointed in Louisiana with reference to the regularity of his appointment, or with reference to his right to the custody of property found here, which was a part of the estate of the decedent, and which was not sent here for market, and not burdened with the lien for freight up to its value, and possibly of not sufficient value unless immediately disposed of to discharge the obligation of the estate for the freight. It is enough for the purposes of this application to say, that this property is in the hands of the complainants, and has been put in their hands by the administrators of the deceased, who had the right to deal with it, certainly to the extent of providing for the payment of the freight, and the payment by the complainants of this freight gives them the right to hold this property, certainly until they are indemnified.
Let, therefore, the injunction issue upon the complainants giving bond, with good and sufficient security, in the sum of $5,000.
